PDA

View Full Version : FSF Windows trashing campaign



Findarato
August 27th, 2009, 10:55 AM
Hello everyone,

I guess you all almost all know about the new campaign the FSF has launched to counter Windows 7 (http://windows7sins.org/). I would like to know what you think about it.
I myself find it pretty much shameful in the way that I use Linux for the whole idea and the feeling of the "community" behind it. To me it brings to mind an idea of a better world (at least in technology). This campaign is nothing but trashing a competitor. I know MS does the same thing, but why go as low as that ? How come the FSF goes this low to bash in MS ? It's like kids trying to prove who is better...
Linux and Free Software as a whole should focus on positive points, not the "bad points of MS".

But that is just my opinion of course, so what do you think about it ?

SunnyRabbiera
August 27th, 2009, 11:39 AM
I think its fair, Microsoft likes trashing linux, so why not trash em back?

Giant Speck
August 27th, 2009, 11:42 AM
I personally don't care anymore. Regardless, I don't think they're going to be that successful.

Screwdriver0815
August 27th, 2009, 11:42 AM
@findarato: my opinion is opposite to yours.

Look, all this is like the following:

Microsoft has a position on the market in which they use their power and marketshare to dictate the customer what he has to do.

Moreover, Microsoft also does campaigns, like "Get the facts" or "its better with Windows" to hold their status in the market. This is legal for them, so it is legal for others.

The FSF is a organisation which represents the interests of its members. In this position they have the right to do marketing campaigns as well. The argument, that they have lowered their level down on Microsofts level is a bit... :confused:
because when you do a big campaign which tells people that Linux and free software is as good as Microsofts stuff, then you imply that you are simply NOT as good as Microsoft. Which is not true. But the customer thinks: "wait...when they say that they are as good as Microsoft, then Microsoft must be better".
Today, in these times you must state agressivly that you are better - in the way, Microsoft does it.

All this also ensures that people talk about you. To be in everybodys mind is much more important than staying above someone else's level.

Thats why I think, this campaign is not bad. Because it brings free software and so on into peoples minds and if it goes wrong, nothing will happen, we will not get any harm from it.

gnomeuser
August 27th, 2009, 12:01 PM
I think they are childish, the resort to what is basically spamming every fortune 500 company. They are making us all look like fundamentalists and we should distance ourselves from them.

I cancelled my membership sometime ago over this behavior, I simply won't be party to it or lend my name to that type of campaigning.

Findarato
August 27th, 2009, 12:01 PM
@findarato: my opinion is opposite to yours.

Look, all this is like the following:

Microsoft has a position on the market in which they use their power and marketshare to dictate the customer what he has to do.

Moreover, Microsoft also does campaigns, like "Get the facts" or "its better with Windows" to hold their status in the market. This is legal for them, so it is legal for others.

The FSF is a organisation which represents the interests of its members. In this position they have the right to do marketing campaigns as well. The argument, that they have lowered their level down on Microsofts level is a bit... :confused:
because when you do a big campaign which tells people that Linux and free software is as good as Microsofts stuff, then you imply that you are simply NOT as good as Microsoft. Which is not true. But the customer thinks: "wait...when they say that they are as good as Microsoft, then Microsoft must be better".
Today, in these times you must state agressivly that you are better - in the way, Microsoft does it.

All this also ensures that people talk about you. To be in everybodys mind is much more important than staying above someone else's level.

Thats why I think, this campaign is not bad. Because it brings free software and so on into peoples minds and if it goes wrong, nothing will happen, we will not get any harm from it.

I am not saying the FSF Should not campaign. I am simply saying 2 things :
1) This campaign makes me want to use Free Software a bit less, because it puts dirt on the otherwise very clean image I have of it.
2) I am convinced "positive" (I can do this and this and that) marketing is better then "negative" (He can't do this and this and that) marketing.

It's a basic human principle. It's not because someone yells at you that you should yell back...

Hallvor
August 27th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Keep it up and they`ll end up being the bad guys against Microsoft, and that would be quite an achievement.

They do have some very valid points, but the FSF should leave that sort of stuff to others. It just makes them look bad.

howefield
August 27th, 2009, 12:13 PM
The language used is pathetic, education becomes "poisoning education" privacy becomes "invading privacy", and so on... even the website name is extreme, however much you may dislike microsoft, it is a stretch to call them sinners, at least in the conventional definition of the word.

Which schoolboy/girl put it together., ? He/she has done the FSF no favours.

The motives may be good, but the method is juvenile.

Screwdriver0815
August 27th, 2009, 12:16 PM
I am not saying the FSF Should not campaign. I am simply saying 2 things :
1) This campaign makes me want to use Free Software a bit less, because it puts dirt on the otherwise very clean image I have of it.
2) I am convinced "positive" (I can do this and this and that) marketing is better then "negative" (He can't do this and this and that) marketing.

It's a basic human principle. It's not because someone yells at you that you should yell back...

1) how does it put dirt on the clean image? Because it names the disadvantages of a competitor?

My feelings about all this is, that most people have something like fear or like "oh my God, its Microsoft, its a huge company, hopefully they don't kill us as Linux-users", even when they do not have anything to do with Microsoft.
But Steve Ballmer looks like every human being when he is sitting on the toilet, doesn't he?

2) but this is what all the Linux companies do all the time. Business is not like "competitor A (MS) can slam us and we say »thanks, we agree, but we can do this and this«"
Business is fighting with equal weapons. And when a competitor chooses this weapon, you can not stay on the behaviour like "if he slams me, I feel good because inside my heart I know that I am better", because you need the attention of the customer. This is the only thing which counts. So you need to choose the same weapon as the competitor.

Business is not Love and peace, it is war.

Findarato
August 27th, 2009, 12:31 PM
1) how does it put dirt on the clean image? Because it names the disadvantages of a competitor?

My feelings about all this is, that most people have something like fear or like "oh my God, its Microsoft, its a huge company, hopefully they don't kill us as Linux-users", even when they do not have anything to do with Microsoft.
But Steve Ballmer looks like every human being when he is sitting on the toilet, doesn't he?

2) but this is what all the Linux companies do all the time. Business is not like "competitor A (MS) can slam us and we say »thanks, we agree, but we can do this and this«"
Business is fighting with equal weapons. And when a competitor chooses this weapon, you can not stay on the behaviour like "if he slams me, I feel good because inside my heart I know that I am better", because you need the attention of the customer. This is the only thing which counts. So you need to choose the same weapon as the competitor.

1) They are not simply showing MS errors of judgement, they are trashing them. It's the trashing part that bothers me.
2) This is simply choice of style. For example, look at the campaign of the Swiss watchmaking industry against counterfeit : "Be authentic, buy real". This doesn't trash anyone, It simply puts the points on the good parts of buying real (In FS, using a REAL operating system or software :P). I always had an image of FS in this way : Clean, elegant and the best choice. The two first elements are as important as the last one to me.

I would never have started to use Free Software if it had been making this campaign when I started...

saulgoode
August 27th, 2009, 12:47 PM
1) They are not simply showing MS errors of judgement, they are trashing them. It's the trashing part that bothers me.
2) This is simply choice of style. For example, look at the campaign of the Swiss watchmaking industry against counterfeit : "Be authentic, buy real". This doesn't trash anyone, It simply puts the points on the good parts of buying real (In FS, using a REAL operating system or software :P). I always had an image of FS in this way : Clean, elegant and the best choice. The two first elements are as important as the last one to me.

And yet your style choice is to "trash" the FSF campaign. Isn't that a mite hypocritical?

armandh
August 27th, 2009, 12:57 PM
I think, done well, ads making a point about the competitors faults are ok. at least macs lean to humorous.

were I doing a Linux search ad with people looking for a new computer I would have them returning from the store finding none just right but the explain ..... some one has shown them what Ubuntu will do for their trade in

oxf
August 27th, 2009, 12:58 PM
I think its childish and counter productive. It potentially makes Linux users look like a bunch of nutters! I'd rather concentrate on the technical and practical aspects of why Linux is better. For the same reason much as I'm very pleased with my Linux experience I dont go around trying to "convert" people. If someone want to talk about it or ask I'll tell them but otherwise just get on with my life.

Tristam Green
August 27th, 2009, 01:27 PM
I think you're a day late and a dollar short to start a new discussion about this:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1249498

Screwdriver0815
August 27th, 2009, 01:31 PM
1) They are not simply showing MS errors of judgement, they are trashing them. It's the trashing part that bothers me.
2) This is simply choice of style. For example, look at the campaign of the Swiss watchmaking industry against counterfeit : "Be authentic, buy real". This doesn't trash anyone, It simply puts the points on the good parts of buying real (In FS, using a REAL operating system or software :P). I always had an image of FS in this way : Clean, elegant and the best choice. The two first elements are as important as the last one to me.

I would never have started to use Free Software if it had been making this campaign when I started...

1) how do they trash them? As far as I am concerned, everything they wrote in this letter are facts. Its just a list of facts.
Being "friendly" and keeping some of these facts under the carpet, just for being "a good boy" and not to do any harm to someone is a sign of weakness. In this case, maybe Microsoft itself could come up and say "look at them, they are wimps" and with this, the whole campaign would have been a waste.

2) isnt that trashing too? Let me talk like you, or at least do it like I understand you (no offending intended - just to get a understanding of each other):

»don't the swiss watchmakers trash these poor chinese people? Look, they just want to survive and the swiss are rich, why don't they just let the chinese do what they want?
Being real... isn't a guy, who wears a chinese replica also a real human being? Isn't he worth the same, even when he buys a chines replica? Its a bad style to say that people who do not buy a swiss watch aren't real«

do you see what I mean? You always could interprete something bad into some action. So it is here... I would not see this as sooo critical.
Sometimes you must choose the same weapons as your competitor. Being a good boy and always being handsome and standing back and thinking "ah but I know that I am better" is not good.
Everybody needs to be a bad boy sometimes ;)

RiceMonster
August 27th, 2009, 01:45 PM
It's stupid. Why don't they promote free software rather than bashing proprietary software? I for one, am never convinced by negative campaigns. I want to hear what's good about your side of the story, not why the other side sucks.

But anyway, at least it's easy to avoid and it won't make a difference.


I think they are childish, the resort to what is basically spamming every fortune 500 company. They are making us all look like fundamentalists and we should distance ourselves from them.

+1

3rdalbum
August 27th, 2009, 01:52 PM
I haven't seen the FSF website, but more people need to stand up and say "Of all the bad things everyone complained about in Vista, absolutely NONE have been fixed in Windows 7". That includes the enforced DRM.

Findarato
August 27th, 2009, 01:53 PM
And yet your style choice is to "trash" the FSF campaign. Isn't that a mite hypocritical?

It is a very different thing. I myself am a Free Software user and put everyone I know on Linux... If I were a windows user, it's ok to trash windows (I'm trashing my own choice), because it is used to "build a better operating system". If you critisize someone else's choice though, then it becomes wrong...

bluenova
August 27th, 2009, 01:54 PM
The silly thing is, although Windows 7 has all the 'features' we love to hate such as DRM, it is actually a very good O/S, the best MS have ever produced IMO. I could understand trashing Vista or XP before SP2 or 98 before SP2, but Windows 7 is actually really good, not for me, but good all the same.

Screwdriver0815
August 27th, 2009, 02:04 PM
It is a very different thing. I myself am a Free Software user and put everyone I know on Linux... If I were a windows user, it's ok to trash windows (I'm trashing my own choice), because it is used to "build a better operating system". If you critisize someone else's choice though, then it becomes wrong...

but the others are allowed to critisize for example your choice, and this is right?

Sorry, I don't get this attitude.

gnuvistawouldbecool
August 27th, 2009, 02:15 PM
My opinion:
Altruistic ideas and capitalist ones just don't mix.

Any arguments on this results in the heated debates as seen here and all over the internet.

Bölvağur
August 27th, 2009, 02:17 PM
I personally don't care anymore. Regardless, I don't think they're going to be that successful.

I agree.
But my take on things would be stand behind open source projects like open office and firefox, which would then open people eyes

pwnst*r
August 27th, 2009, 02:29 PM
FSF are a bunch of morons.

Ozor Mox
August 27th, 2009, 03:26 PM
Microsoft get away with that Get The Facts nonsense, why shouldn't free software fight back? I just wish they would do it a more level-headed, facts-based way instead of the approach they seem to use at the moment.

Giant Speck
August 27th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Microsoft get away with that Get The Facts nonsense, why shouldn't free software fight back? I just wish they would do it a more level-headed, facts-based way instead of the approach they seem to use at the moment.

Actually, Microsoft finally realized that the Get The Facts website was beyond useful and replaced it with a website that compares Windows servers with Linux severs.

Screwdriver0815
August 27th, 2009, 04:07 PM
Actually, Microsoft finally realized that the Get The Facts website was beyond useful and replaced it with a website that compares Windows servers with Linux severs.

replaced?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx?R=cf

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx

replaced means: you delete something in favour of something else... here we have adding... because both exist: the get the facts site and the server comparison site.

sydbat
August 27th, 2009, 04:52 PM
Y'know...just because Microsoft spreads FUD does not make it right for anyone else (including the FSF) to do so.

That said, I agree that an aggressive approach is best when dealing with the FUD spread by Microsoft. However, as stated a few times in this thread, negative campaigns do not work effectively.

Look at political campaigns where there are nothing but negative ads. All it does is reduce voter turnout and make a joke of the democratic process.

Then look at the recent US elections where the positive ad campaigns produced near record voter turnout.

So, positive advertising makes you (and your product) look better and appeals to more people, generating more revenue...while negative advertising creates fear and uncertainty about you (and your products) and negatively impacts your revenue stream.

If the FSF were smart, they would reduce the FUD they spread by eliminating these campaigns against Microsoft and focus on the positive things they have to offer. They could still point out the differences, show the FUD spread by Microsoft, AND show how much better Free and Open Source Software is, without lowering themselves to competitors juvenile levels.

Unfortunately, RMS is stuck inside his own head and surrounded by 'yes men' who do not challenge his (often) rantings and just do what he says. If he had people around him who said "um...dude...wait a sec", The FSF would be a LOT more successful.

That's my take on this whole debate. Tear it apart if you must...but please do not selectively quote one thing while ignoring the rest of my post.

Firestem4
August 27th, 2009, 04:59 PM
<QUOTE>

+1 I agree with everything Sydbat said. It's childish of the FSF to do things like this. They've lowered themselves to the level of Microsoft. If thats the case how are we better off with the FSF than with Microsoft? We aren't. Not if they are both one in the same regardless of their position or principles.

decoherence
August 27th, 2009, 05:22 PM
My main problem with the campaign is that they make statements that use broad language, leaving wiggle room for people to argue against the point. It would be better if they cited several sources for each statement, especially if they're sending this out to Fortune 500 companies. If the claims are factual (and I feel they are) then it shouldn't be too hard to provide several examples of each point.

As far as "lowering themselves to MS's level" I say "who cares?" Let them fling dirt; just make sure it sticks because if it doesn't, then you look like a nutter. The FSF's job is to support the principals of free software, period. Which methods they use only concern me from the standpoint of their effectiveness -- I really don't care if it's 'mean' or 'low' unless that could result in a public opinion backlash. And frankly, the only people are are going to lash out are those who are already religiously committed to one side or the other.

Groucho Marxist
August 27th, 2009, 07:05 PM
The language used is pathetic, education becomes "poisoning education" privacy becomes "invading privacy", and so on... even the website name is extreme, however much you may dislike microsoft, it is a stretch to call them sinners, at least in the conventional definition of the word.

Which schoolboy/girl put it together., ? He/she has done the FSF no favours.

The motives may be good, but the method is juvenile.


Here here; I say, have Linux exact "revenge" on Microsoft through constructive rather than destructive methods of advertising. After all, which would you rather be exposed to? Negative ads, or positive ads? Linux marketers should stress the benefits of this software and subsequent computing philosophy rather than resort to petulant name-calling.

Yellow Pasque
August 27th, 2009, 07:20 PM
The FSF tries too hard. That harsh language won't appeal to the target audience, though the example of Windows NT was a good one.

I also want to rant about my local school district teaching 4th-graders to use PowerPoint.

khelben1979
August 27th, 2009, 07:29 PM
I think they are childish,

Agreed. I believe in choice and if someone wants to use Windows or products from Microsoft, go ahead.

Any actions which is based on hate against Linux makes it the same way back, it's logical, but I don't really care about this. Anyone have a right to an opinion and personally I don't like Windows because how it's made, not because it's made by Microsoft.

phrostbyte
August 27th, 2009, 07:30 PM
I am curious where people are getting this info that "negative campaigns don't work effectively". Is this been scientifically/statistically validated?

Honestly this is working very effectively. Almost the whole tech news industry covered this Windows7sins site. You don't see them doing the same thing with SpreadUbuntu, do you? Do you even know about that website?

And as you can see there is no unanimous hate for this approach.

The site needs a real web designer, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the premise.

RiceMonster
August 27th, 2009, 07:33 PM
I am curious where people are getting this info that "negative campaigns don't work effectively". Is this been scientifically/statistically validated?

Honestly this is working very effectively, I think.

Almost the whole tech news industry covered this Windows7sins site. You don't see them doing the same thing with SpreadUbuntu, do you? Do you even know about that website?

And as you can see there is no unanimous hate for this approach.

Publicity is not necessarily a good thing. This could be shown to everybody who's ever used Windows, but that doesn't mean it's actually working.

phrostbyte
August 27th, 2009, 07:34 PM
Publicity is not necessarily a good thing. This could be shown to everybody who's ever used Windows, but that doesn't mean it's actually working.

I think: If you want to get people to switch over to Linux in the first place, you have to somehow show Windows is broken. Otherwise why would anyone switch? Linux will get nowhere fast. But that is inherently "negative marketing". Oh well.

You are right, publicity is not always a good thing. But no publicity is ALWAYS a bad thing. But you NEED publicity to spread a product.

I think Canonical are very bad at this marketing thing. When has Canonical wrote a letter to Fortune 500 companies about Ubuntu? You know how many letters Microsoft sends? How many salespeople they have? Where is the Canonical marketing force? Even Mozilla has marketing people. A friggen web browser.

RiceMonster
August 27th, 2009, 07:39 PM
I think: If you want to get people to switch over to Linux in the first place, you have to somehow show Windows is broken. Otherwise why would anyone switch? Linux will get nowhere fast. But that is inherently "negative marketing". Oh well.

You are right, publicity is not always a good thing. But you NEED publicity to spread a product. I think are very bad at this. When has Canonical wrote a letter to Fortune 500 companies about Ubuntu? You know how many letters Microsoft sends? How many salespeople they have? Where is the Canonical marketing force?

Maybe Canonical cares about gaining more users, but I don't. I'll leave it at that.

phrostbyte
August 27th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Maybe Canonical cares about gaining more users, but I don't. I'll leave it at that.

You don't have a monetary stake in the success of Ubuntu, so I don't blame you. But if no one is in this game to win, I promise you, Linux will never win. You need the fighters, the people who will do everything it takes to win. My 2 cents.

23meg
August 27th, 2009, 08:29 PM
It's stupid. Why don't they promote free software rather than bashing proprietary software? I for one, am never convinced by negative campaigns. I want to hear what's good about your side of the story, not why the other side sucks.

That's a viewpoint that's easy to sympathize with - it makes so much sense. And a campaign conducted with that approach would probably be successful in a market that's not dominated by one product, with which you don't have a deeply rooted ethical problem. If you were to promote the strengths of a product that had considerable mindshare in the general public, with a market share of 20%, against the weaknesses of a product that had 50%, you'd have a point.

But we're talking about a 95% to 2% split here (the actual numbers may vary; you get the point). It's not a level playing field. Most people know Windows, not the virtually unknown operating system you want to promote, along with its unorthodox ethics. Since talking about "software freedom" as a concept in a vacuum is not going to help you promote it, you need examples, and the more popular the example, the better.

Another point to think of: regular promotion campaigns for products tend to promote the strengths of their own product, at most with a reference to what "other products" can't do, without citing the names of any competitors - because advertisers know that even mentioning your competitor's name gains them mindshare in market operations. But political campaigns and social movements tend to name their opposition and go head on against them.

Promoting free software is not merely product promotion; it's a political act by nature.

I don't exactly sympathize with this particular campaign either, to the extent that I've learned about it, but bearing the above points in mind can help you better assess the actions of the FSF.

Screwdriver0815
August 27th, 2009, 08:32 PM
You don't have a monetary stake in the success of Ubuntu, so I don't blame you. But if no one is in this game to win, I promise you, Linux will never win. You need the fighters, the people who will do everything it takes to win. My 2 cents.

the strange thing about Linux, free software and open source is for me: when someone stands up and maybe says "I want to win", like M. Shuttleworth did it in the past and if someone stands up and does things to gain publicity like the FSF did it - even when it is bad - there are always people who feel in a strange way about this.

This leads me to think that people in this free software world feel something like "we are the good boys but we can not be proud of our stuff because when someone thinks bad about us then our chart house of »please do not hurt me, otherwise I cry« collapses"

this makes me sad.

saulgoode
August 27th, 2009, 09:24 PM
The Free Software Foundation is not a competitor to Microsoft. It is an organization dedicated to promoting software freedom.

Pointing out that a particular software vendor engages in practices contrary to the Foundation's ideology is not an advertising campaign to compete in the marketplace, it is a campaign to raise awareness about the issues that concern the Foundation, in the same vein as PETA's campaigns against KFC or McDonalds, or the Audubon Society's campaigns against Weyerhaeuser or Exxon, or Smoke-Free America criticizing RJ Reynolds or Philip Morris are intended to raise concerns over the misbehavior of those respective corporations.

MikeTheC
August 28th, 2009, 01:51 AM
People who are offended by the FSF need to grow considerably thicker skin and get over themselves.

Mr. Picklesworth
August 28th, 2009, 02:09 AM
This guy pretty well mirrors my thoughts, so I should just link to him:
http://jonathancarter.co.za/2009/08/26/windows7sins-launches/

Except for one other detail. Whenever I release something under the GNU GPL, that links me to the FSF in some way. (I am using their license). Personally, I would rather not be linked to a group of people that behaves in this juvenile way, so this has me seriously considering NOT using their license. I am not the only one who thinks like that.

amg181270
August 28th, 2009, 02:36 AM
The FSF are going about this all wrong, that much is certain.

Yet Microsoft have done far worse than this over the last twenty years but woe betide you if you point this out.

Clearly many people here have adopted the mantra "Microsoft can do no wrong, Microsoft can do no wrong".

If any other company adopted the same tactics as Microsoft these very same people would be screaming for justice to be done.

I'm beginning to think these people that hang out in the Community Cafe do so just to jump on anybody that is critical of Microsoft in any way.

RiceMonster
August 28th, 2009, 02:37 AM
You don't have a monetary stake in the success of Ubuntu, so I don't blame you. But if no one is in this game to win, I promise you, Linux will never win. You need the fighters, the people who will do everything it takes to win. My 2 cents.

I don't care if Linux "wins" either. This isn't a war, you know.

Why can't people just use Linux, stop giving a crap about what other people use and stop caring about evil corporations? I wonder why I still post in these threads.

DeadSuperHero
August 28th, 2009, 02:42 AM
If any other company adopted the same tactics as Microsoft these very same people would be screaming for justice to be done.

You mean such tactics as done by Apple, Sun Microsystems, Amiga, IBM, NeXT, Be Inc, Adobe, Google, Novell, SanDisk, Sony, Nintendo, and other computer companies?

All of the above companies have uses exactly the same tactics as Microsoft, in different ways. It's called business.

CharmyBee
August 28th, 2009, 02:46 AM
Thanks FSF, i'll make sure i'll buy and enjoy Windows 7.

phrostbyte
August 28th, 2009, 02:47 AM
I don't care if Linux "wins" either. This isn't a war, you know.

Why can't people just use Linux, stop giving a crap about what other people use and stop caring about evil corporations?


I don't know if this a real question, but there is a lot of reasons:


A lot of people take pride in what they like (Linux) and want it to be successful. This can be a reason in it's own right. It's the same feeling of patriotism or fan for a sport team. (I think this describes most Linux fans), unlike sports teams, Linux is not a fabricated cause
Other people have deep convictions, they want to change the status quo. They see the world as fundamentally broken and free software one of many ways to fix it. (This describes the FSF)
Then there are others who simply have a selfish reason for wanting the world to be a certain way (you can say, a business reason). (This describes Google, Canonical, Red Hat, etc.)
Other are paid for the purpose of "giving a crap" what other people use, eg: Microsoft hires people who only job is to give a crap. (this describes people who work in marketing or PR, they probably work for #3)


I hope this helps.

amg181270
August 28th, 2009, 02:54 AM
You mean such tactics as done by Apple, Sun Microsystems, Amiga, IBM, NeXT, Be Inc, Adobe, Google, Novell, SanDisk, Sony, Nintendo, and other computer companies?

All of the above companies have uses exactly the same tactics as Microsoft, in different ways. It's called business.


I think only the IBM of old would come anywhere near what Microsoft are getting away with now.

Are you defending Microsoft and justifying their methods?

running_rabbit07
August 28th, 2009, 02:57 AM
Microsoft has a position on the market in which they use their power and marketshare to dictate the customer what he has to do.

This line says about as much as the first line in the OP's site link. B.S. My daughters school and most of the school systems in Nevada have OSX, not MS.

People can say what they want about Microsoft, not many people are listening. Especially the people that count. Does anyone think the that DOD cares what is being said about MS? No. They have hundreds of thousands if not millions of Microsoft systems and they are not going to change them to Linux.

phrostbyte
August 28th, 2009, 03:02 AM
This line says about as much as the first line in the OP's site link. B.S. My daughters school and most of the school systems in Nevada have OSX, not MS.

People can say what they want about Microsoft, not many people are listening. Especially the people that count. Does anyone think the that DOD cares what is being said about MS? No. They have hundreds of thousands if not millions of Microsoft systems and they are not going to change them to Linux.

The DoD doesn't use Windows exclusively by any means, in fact in the 80s and 90s the DoD actually financed the creation of their own OS, which is now open source (BSD4.4). The DoD is also a Linux developer, contributing much of the security framework within the kernel.

running_rabbit07
August 28th, 2009, 03:09 AM
The DoD doesn't use Windows exclusively by any means, in fact in the 80s and 90s the DoD actually financed the creation of their own OS, which is now open source (BSD4.4). The DoD is also a Linux developer, contributing much of the security framework within the kernel.

When I was in the Army every system had Windows XP. Except for one "different" system that had one per unit. They issue lappies to soldiers in college with MS. These systems are the ones that really feed MS's income. The higher level systems you speak of are a very small percentage.

phrostbyte
August 28th, 2009, 03:17 AM
When I was in the Army every system had Windows XP. Except for one "different" system that had one per unit. They issue lappies to soldiers in college with MS. These systems are the ones that really feed MS's income. The higher level systems you speak of are a very small percentage.

Is this just anecdotal evidence or do you have actual numbers?

running_rabbit07
August 28th, 2009, 03:28 AM
Is this just anecdotal evidence or do you have actual numbers?

Actually I made it up because when I sent a letter to Obama asking for letters he sent me a free beer coupon.

Why do you need numbers, you know that all those systems the clerks use in every office that has MS Office on them is really running Linux with wine.

I will join your rally and tell my friends to ditch Windows right away because they were being forced to use it.

phrostbyte
August 28th, 2009, 03:30 AM
I don't think the FSF even sent any letters to the DoD, but they can actually customize a pretty good letter to the US government: proprietary systems are a real threat to national security.

That might seem over the top, but consider this:

For one: we aren't so sure (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY) Microsoft is very loyal to US interests.

Secondly: If the DoD accepts something without having access to it's source code, there is inherent and serious risks of intelligence breaches. For instance, foreign governments could have implemented back doors in the system. This can be difficult to detect if crafted correctly without having access to the source code. This policy of 3rd party software might bite us one day, especially if we ever go to war with a technologically savvy country like China.

Ideally, any OS the DoD uses should be produced internally (for maximum security). But if this is not possible, they should demand the source code and audit it entirely before using it.

This can also (probably even more successfully) be argued to foreign governments, it isn't exclusive to the DoD.

This point can be argued to large enterprises (eg: Goldman Sacks) who are frequent targets of corporate espionage. It's even a public sector threat, potentially anyone using a proprietary system for anything sensitive and valuable is at risk.

KinKiac
August 28th, 2009, 03:39 AM
I havent read much of this thread yet, but my opinion is this: Bash MS and bash em hard. The reason I say this is because of what MS has done to the PC world. What they have done(and are doing) is far beyond simple bashing of other OS's. They have effectively stopped the production of other OS's and software that operates on other OS's. If it was not for them, Linux would be much more than it is today.

MS has up until recently destroyed all competition, not with better products but with shady deals, possibly illegal deals, as well as threats to software and hardware developers.

I really wish people would stop with the whole "we are better than them so we dont have to bash" BS. (sorry is this comes off a little harsh, I dont mean to offend anyone) Its not about that. Its about not standing by watching as everything you have worked for is subverted by a corporation bent on making sure there is no one out there for them to compete with, be it by legal or illegal means. They have done both and they have been called on it by the US government as well as now the EU.

I personally will not stand by and keep my mouth shut. Every time I have to fix someones Windows, I tell them why I dont like MS and why. Every time I hear someone complain about Windows, I tell them about Linux, or Mac, or Google Chrome or whatever. I let them know they have options, and that depending on what they are doing that they may be better.

Anyway, thats my take on things. MS has done everything in their power, both legally and illegally, and deserves to fall. There are plenty of others more than capable of picking up the slack if they do, as once they are out of the picture, hardware and software developers have no reason not to support ALL OS's.

inobe
August 28th, 2009, 03:40 AM
nothing wrong with fsf, let the truth be told "for once"

rajcan
August 28th, 2009, 03:49 AM
I say let them go at it. Personally I'd like to see linux get a little more media attention, cause I don't like how so many people associate computer with windows. On top of that I've had one of my friends who's avid about software freedom rant to me on the subject. So I've heard much on the subject, and I understand where they're coming from. Yet at the same time I know that there's some who could care less if the software they're using is free. So long as they can write papers for school, surf the web, and play games they do not care. Plus, you've got the issue of computer illiteracy. There's so many people out there who barely know how to surf the web or type something. I'm constantly seeing this in my friends and family. Windows has become what people know, understand, and expect from a computer. So while I'd love to see linux gain more attention, I can see that windows won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and that many will upgrade to the news Windows 7. Me....I say let FSF go on with their campaign, let more people know of the open source and community effort of linux, but I'll be sitting on the sidelines. Life going on as normal.

running_rabbit07
August 28th, 2009, 03:54 AM
I don't think the FSF even sent any letters to the DoD, but they can actually customize a pretty good letter to the US government: proprietary systems are a real threat to national security.

That might seem over the top, but consider this:

For one: we aren't so sure (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY) Microsoft is very loyal to US interests.

Secondly: If the DoD accepts something without having access to it's source code, there is inherent and serious risks of intelligence breaches. For instance, foreign governments could have implemented back doors in the system. This can be difficult to detect if crafted correctly without having access to the source code. This policy of 3rd party software might bite us one day, especially if we ever go to war with a technologically savvy country like China.

Ideally, any OS the DoD uses should be produced internally (for maximum security). But if this is not possible, they should demand the source code and audit it entirely before using it.

Their networks are, but all of the systems should be.


This can also (probably even more successfully) be argued to foreign governments.

This point can be argued to large enterprises (eg: Goldman Sacks) who are frequent targets of corporate espionage. It's even a public sector threat, potentially anyone using a proprietary system for anything sensitive and valuable is at risk.

That's the thing. We both know that the Gov in general should be using Linux or some derivative of Linux, but the office systems I speak of aren't supposed to contain classified documents, though I think they sometimes do. These systems are supposed to be used for typing documents and other non-tactical tasks.

If the Dept. of Treasury had Linux when the recent virus attack that yahoo was saying North Korea started, their systems wouldn't have crashed.

I just don't think using FUD is the way to impress people.

Edit: I would love to debate more about DoD stuff, but every thing I think to talk about takes me across one bit of classified info or another.

inobe
August 28th, 2009, 03:59 AM
i don't think fsf is fud' especially when it's actually truthful, now if it was bs i wouldn't oppose.

i understand stooping to someone else's level makes us no better, this isn't the case.

Giant Speck
August 28th, 2009, 04:10 AM
Edit: I would love to debate more about DoD stuff, but every thing I think to talk about takes me across one bit of classified info or another.

That's why I'm trying my best not to chime in about the subject. ;)

inobe
August 28th, 2009, 04:49 AM
think

feel

believe

assume

deny

agree

disagree

in the end "you agreed to the eula"

i didn't

Methuselah
August 28th, 2009, 04:49 AM
The domain name is dramatic but the points raised are valid.
Why should I care that FSF trashes Windows?
Microsoft can fight its own battles.

running_rabbit07
August 28th, 2009, 04:52 AM
think

feel

believe

assume

deny

agree

disagree

in the end "you agreed to the eula"

i didn't
And then? ( me no have MS, me have Ubuntu = no EULA)

Frak
August 28th, 2009, 05:15 AM
Anymore, I'm starting to think the FSF is run by 3 year olds.

So childish.

JillSwift
August 28th, 2009, 05:24 AM
So childish.
:rolleyes:

You do realize, I hope, that a dismissal of that sort is just response in kind, right?

More than simply disliking negative campaigns in any context, I hate them. I desperately wish I could make a strong argument that they are ineffective, or that they reflected more on the campaigner than on whoever the campaigner is bashing.

Sadly, the psychology of negative campaigns is solid. People to respond more deeply and more strongly to appeals to disgust and dislike, especially when they are offered the choice to stand as a member of the group doing the bashing. This is why negative campaigns as part of (or the whole of) election advertisements have become the norm in Western democracies.

The FSF is simply doing what works.

Frak
August 28th, 2009, 05:26 AM
:rolleyes:

You do realize, I hope, that a dismissal of that sort is just response in kind, right?

More than simply disliking negative campaigns in any context, I hate them. I desperately wish I could make a strong argument that they are ineffective, or that they reflected more on the campaigner than on whoever the campaigner is bashing.

Sadly, the psychology of negative campaigns is solid. People to respond more deeply and more strongly to appeals to disgust and dislike, especially when they are offered the choice to stand as a member of the group doing the bashing. This is why negative campaigns as part of (or the whole of) election advertisements have become the norm in Western democracies.

The FSF is simply doing what works.
Well, I just bought another copy of Vista today, so I fail to see how it's working >.>

Plus, claiming a company is evil is backwards in-and-of itself.

HappinessNow
August 28th, 2009, 05:26 AM
Yaaaaawwwwwn!!!!!! I find it all very boring, just hearing about it makes me very, very sleepy!

running_rabbit07
August 28th, 2009, 05:30 AM
More than simply disliking negative campaigns in any context, I hate them. I desperately wish I could make a strong argument that they are ineffective, or that they reflected more on the campaigner than on whoever the campaigner is bashing..

There was evidence of that in our recent election. (My opinion.)

HappinessNow
August 28th, 2009, 05:32 AM
.

JillSwift
August 28th, 2009, 05:38 AM
Well, I just bought another copy of Vista today, so I fail to see how it's working >.>

Plus, claiming a company is evil is backwards in-and-of itself.Well, you're only one data point. I won't be buying a MS operating system, but it has nothing to do with the FSF. In fact, I don't expect the FSF's campaign to have much effect at all. But, they are doing what's proven effective.

Yes, the whole use of such language as "evil" is just face-palm inducing, I must agree.


<example of basing campaign not resulting in election>
EDIT: Well, there are always other factors, it's hard to pin this stuff down, because psychology (especially social/mass psychology) is about trending and long-view expectations. Taken one event at a time, it all looks rather of random.

running_rabbit07
August 28th, 2009, 05:41 AM
Nevermind, gonna leave the politics alone.

lykwydchykyn
August 28th, 2009, 06:04 AM
I am all for communicating to the average person the benefits of free software, open development, ending software patents, and the whole lot. But the execution here gets a great big FAIL in my book.

For a while now I've been trying to coin a saying, something like this:
"A poor argument for your position is a good argument against it" (Ben Franklin eat your heart out).

Point being, don't support unsound arguments just because they support your position.

The campaign site is really unprofessional, uses very extreme language and comes off looking and sounding like one of those conspiracy theory sites that try to convince you that the FDA is suppressing vital information about peanut butter that could cure cancer, gout, and diabetes.

They raise some good points, but everything from the language used to the layout and graphics screams of adolescence. I can't imagine a single fortune 500 company took those letters seriously; probably most are taped to the IT department's fridge right below a picture of St Ignucious (http://stallman.org/saintignucius.jpg).

utnubuuser
August 28th, 2009, 06:10 AM
When you see someone doing something that harms your nation, neighbor, friend, you, whatever, do you just stand there and say nothing, or do you respond?
The FSF's philosophical stand-point is diametrically opposed to MicroSoft's business practices.
If you don't think it's right, you can quietly think to yourself that it's wrong, but it's not your concern, or you can stand up and do something about it.
You decide.
You're living in a democratic state, (Schweitz), in which the citizens have an input on almost every issue of government. If you think they're (the FSF) not handling the campaign well, get involved, and do a better job of it. I'm sure they'd love any constructive input. - It's only because of the FSF and Gnu that Ubuntu even exists.

There are no big issues and little issues. - There is what is right, and what isn't.
Do you think MS is pulling any punches? Given half a chance, they'd see you and every other linux user locked out of their world.

benmoran
August 28th, 2009, 06:35 AM
Like it or not, pretty much everything on that site is true. That's more than you can say about Microsoft's Get the "Facts" style campaigns.

Methuselah
August 28th, 2009, 06:42 AM
To paraphrase:

MS:

'The GPL is anti-american'

'Linux infringes on hundreds of our patents'

'Linux netbooks are being returned at 4 times the rate of windows netbooks'

FSF:

'MS and it's software are evil'
*Reasons below*

Frankly, I'm not outraged either way.
Shocking claims are a way to gain notice/attention.
This is even more important when one does not have a multi-billion dollar war-chest.
And fundamentally important when the shocking claims are true...lol

So this website spawned a multi-page thread discussing the campaign, it's arguments and it's merits/demerits.
I guarantee that it has already accomplished more than a wishy-washy 'windows might not be the best option for you' approach would have.

mrgnash
August 28th, 2009, 06:55 AM
Don't really care. The reason(s) I use Linux have little to do with the FSF or MS, and almost everything to do with using powerful tools like R, LaTeX, Octave, Bash, Vim, etc. in a secure, stable environment. All I want to know is where is the OSuXs site to go along with it, since Apple have committed at least as many "sins" (using FSF's definition) as MS.

Lavaeagle
August 28th, 2009, 07:19 AM
Smells like arrogance to me.
I didn't get Ubuntu to read stuff like that, and i didn't join this community for this kind of reading material.

Viva
August 28th, 2009, 07:40 AM
When you see someone doing something that harms your nation, neighbor, friend, you, whatever, do you just stand there and say nothing, or do you respond?
The FSF's philosophical stand-point is diametrically opposed to MicroSoft's business practices.
If you don't think it's right, you can quietly think to yourself that it's wrong, but it's not your concern, or you can stand up and do something about it.
You decide.
You're living in a democratic state, (Schweitz), in which the citizens have an input on almost every issue of government. If you think they're (the FSF) not handling the campaign well, get involved, and do a better job of it. I'm sure they'd love any constructive input. - It's only because of the FSF and Gnu that Ubuntu even exists.

There are no big issues and little issues. - There is what is right, and what isn't.
Do you think MS is pulling any punches? Given half a chance, they'd see you and every other linux user locked out of their world.

This.

I'm planning to start a ubuntuforums 7sins campaign to show our support to the FSF:guitar: Basically, everybody who is part of the campaign links to the windows7sins website in their signature

The arrogance and holier than thou attitude of some of the posters on this board annoys me. If you don't care about the free software philosophy and believe in using what works for you best, then do so. But, if you don't want to care about the political aspects of software, then please refrain from bashing those who are concerned about it and fighting for software freedom. I have seen numerous posters claiming that this campaign is a disgrace to the opensource ommunity, but FSF are not part of the Opensource community. They believe in software freedom and the advantages of the community development model are a secondary concern for them.

Methuselah
August 28th, 2009, 07:40 AM
Note that, AFAIK, this campaign is not sponsored by Ubuntu/Canonical.
Not that I find anything wrong with it; just clearing up any misunderstanding.

This is just the followup to badvista.org which FSF created for vista.
They always use some spin on the windows release name and the famous '7 deadly sins' went with windows7.
I like their gumption, it's cool.

You may not always agree but you can rarely accuse the FSF of inconsistency.

AliTabuger7
September 2nd, 2009, 04:12 PM
I am curious where people are getting this info that "negative campaigns don't work effectively". Is this been scientifically/statistically validated?

Honestly this is working very effectively. Almost the whole tech news industry covered this Windows7sins site. You don't see them doing the same thing with SpreadUbuntu, do you? Do you even know about that website?

And as you can see there is no unanimous hate for this approach.

The site needs a real web designer, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the premise.

The URL for that site is currently http://spreadubuntu.neomenlo.org/ until Canonical finally gets around to directing the domain.

Mateo
September 3rd, 2009, 11:11 PM
a

chessnerd
September 4th, 2009, 04:54 AM
I don't use terms like "*******" or "Windblows" or "M$" or "Microsuck" or anything like that for the very reason that I don't think trashing Microsoft Windows is productive, and here's why:

Most people who use Windows don't know of anything else. Saying "Windows sucks and Linux is better" to them is like telling a fish that "water sucks and air is better." They won't get it. It seems like most of these trashing campaigns are really just rally calls to Linux users. They're a way to say "Hey, we all hate *******, let's go bash it together" This is fine, I guess. More power to ya, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

I would much rather have the FSF paying to get billboards or TV aids to promote Linux and FOSS rather than paying to put up an anti-Windows website. In fact, I would love to see a TV ad some day telling people to check out Linux.com or Linux.org or Ubuntu.com. When I see a website like windows7sins.org I just shake my head and say "Well, there's some more money that open-source will never see again..."

hanzomon4
September 4th, 2009, 05:06 AM
This is not a gracious way to deal with competition, not from a supposedly respectable organization.

Irihapeti
September 4th, 2009, 05:24 AM
I much prefer to hear about what's good about someone's product or service, rather than what's bad about their competition.

Recently, I found this:


...The second basic pattern that Bion detailed: The identification and vilification of external enemies. This is a very common pattern. Anyone who was around the Open Source movement in the mid-Nineties could see this all the time. If you cared about Linux on the desktop, there was a big list of jobs to do. But you could always instead get a conversation going about Microsoft and Bill Gates. And people would start bleeding from their ears, they would get so mad.

If you want to make it better, there's a list of things to do. It's Open Source, right? Just fix it. "No, no, Microsoft and Bill Gates grrrrr ...", the froth would start coming out. The external enemy -- nothing causes a group to galvanize like an external enemy.

So even if someone isn't really your enemy, identifying them as an enemy can cause a pleasant sense of group cohesion. And groups often gravitate towards members who are the most paranoid and make them leaders, because those are the people who are best at identifying external enemies. ...

http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html


Not much seems to have changed - I guess it's basic psychology. Given that no one has unlimited time, what about the necessary and valuable things that don't get done as a result?

I think it's rather sad.

mpsii
September 4th, 2009, 05:53 AM
How about something more along the lines of:

Microsoft is bragging about its pending release of Windows 7 and new desirable features:

1) Faster boot (Linux/BSD has been doing that for a while)
2) More stable (Linux/BSD has been doing that too)
3) Able to play DVDs better with Intel processors (Linux/BSD has been playing DVDs smoothly on lesser hardware for several years)
4) You can record TV (been there, done that)
5) Play games (we're rather successful with that, even with Windows-only games)
6) Can run on hardware that struggled with Vista (um.... yeah... SO been there, done that)

and so on...

How about touting the benefits and capabilities of F/OSS rather that trashing Microsoft. Counter the crap that Microsoft has been putting out with self-explanation.

Forget the monopoly and proprietary crap... Focus on "free software".

Need Office --> Abiword, OOo, gnumeric, etc
Need Photoshop --> Gimp, Gimpshop, etc
Need email --> Wow... choices galore

How about even the whole concept of "free software" and "open source" just being software run on Windows?

Hate IE? --> try Firefox, Midori, Gecko
Don't like Outlook Express, Outlook, Lotus Notes? --> try Thunderbird (and free plugins)
Don't want to have 3, 4 or 5 different chat clients for MSN, AOL, Yahoo, Facebook, etc? --> try Pidgin, etc
Like free web phonecalls? --> try SIP VOIP software to call your grandma

I think there is a better method than "Microsoft sux... come join us cool people..."

penguindrive
September 4th, 2009, 06:09 AM
The FSF is doing something that has to be done, making people aware of what microsoft does.

And while it may not do anything to MS's market share, it's better than doing absolutely nothing and pretending microsoft isn't doing anything dishonest.

Tom Mann
September 4th, 2009, 01:53 PM
I'm more concerned about the way they're trashing Microsoft.

The FSF day by day sound more and more like a bunch of raving zealots to me. I love Ubuntu, Linux, and the GNU userland for getting things done.

But they want the extreme for us, which is damaging to those of us who are happy with our nvidia drivers and/or use the occasional piece of specialist software.

We want freedom of choice. We have Windows (You will have Windows 7, DRM and accept having your PC shut down if we think you stole Windows) Mac (You will only use our products, or we'll sue you) and now GNU/Linux (You will only use free software).

What about "You can use whatever software you want to get the job done"?

vinx
September 9th, 2009, 10:07 PM
One of the ways that we were told us to make Linux succeed, was through GNU en FOSS software on Windows. (I don't remember the article). The idea behind: the steps to Linux is easy if you already work with Mozilla en OpenOffice.org

You still see "Gimp better than Photoshop? LMAO!" and some reaction of a Linux-user who tries to answer this troll. The fact is that Gimp is software that is no match to $699 Photoshop, but is very comparable to Jasc PaintShop Pro 6, Microsoft PhotoDraw 2000, Ulead PhotoImpact 5 and Corel Custom Photo. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are all acknowledged better browsers than InternetExplorer (only MS still says it is the best browser: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx ). Then we have the Office Suit, which is MS' best product ever! But we want ODF, since we can share our documents with *any* office-product available (Remember Wordperfect?). Messenger? Gaim/Pidgin only misses some special features like nudges.

I can continue the list (as most of us can dream the list which tells FOSS kicks a*s), but my point is that we must keep trying to get all kinds of Free software to Windows. So tell everybody they should go to sites such as http://www.opensourcewindows.org/ (I like this one for its simplicity) and http://www.osalt.com/

Help to get more Windows-users to start using FOSS! My share is that e-mails end with:
---
Fan of free Software: http://www.opensourcewindows.org/ and http://www.osalt.com/

Icehuck
September 9th, 2009, 10:46 PM
The FSF is doing something that has to be done, making people aware of what microsoft does.

And while it may not do anything to MS's market share, it's better than doing absolutely nothing and pretending microsoft isn't doing anything dishonest.

If they keep doing it the way they are, then the rest of the world will never care. Heck, I don't even care what they have to say anymore.

Frak
September 9th, 2009, 11:48 PM
If they keep doing it the way they are, then the rest of the world will never care. Heck, I don't even care what they have to say anymore.
Yep.

MasterNetra
September 10th, 2009, 12:22 AM
I think its fair, Microsoft likes trashing linux, so why not trash em back?

Because it makes us no better then they are.

Mateo
September 10th, 2009, 12:24 AM
I much prefer to hear about what's good about someone's product or service, rather than what's bad about their competition.

Recently, I found this:




Not much seems to have changed - I guess it's basic psychology. Given that no one has unlimited time, what about the necessary and valuable things that don't get done as a result?

I think it's rather sad.

Great quote, and it's absolutely true.

Mateo
September 10th, 2009, 12:37 AM
The FSF is doing something that has to be done, making people aware of what microsoft does.

And while it may not do anything to MS's market share, it's better than doing absolutely nothing and pretending microsoft isn't doing anything dishonest.

Reading that page makes me think that Microsoft isn't doing anything all that bad. None of the claims are backed by fact (not a single reference is given on the site). Most of the claims fall under the category of "if you have the ability to do something wrong, then you ARE doing something wrong" and, as I said before, offer no evidence of wrong doing. Many of the claims use some fuzzy fact to draw conclusions about Microsoft's intent (such as the implication in #7 that Microsoft is ignoring security concerns in order to force upgrades).

It comes across, overall, similar to how most conspiracy theory websites read. I would read something like this, and then read a quasi-intellectual 2012 Doomsday site and see many of the same types of fuzzy-logic, and lack of verifiable facts. If I were involved in promoting open source I would want to not be associated with the FSF.

dragos240
September 10th, 2009, 12:45 AM
It's fair.

t0p
September 10th, 2009, 01:01 AM
I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread saying stuff like "FSF should promote open source/say how good Linux is instead of telling us Microsoft is evil."

What is the deal with this ignorance? Do you people really not know what the FSF is all about? Or do you just want to impose your views on others?

Please, try to get your heads around this: The Free Software Foundation do not believe that Free/Open Source Software is technically better than proprietary software. That's something that the Open Source Initiative believe - not the FSF.

The FSF say we should all use Free Software because they believe Proprietary Software is Evil. Whether or not you believe this is irrelevant: This is what the FSF believe. They don't urge us to use Free Software because the "bazaar" model of software development produces superior product - they want us to use Free Software because they think it is ethical, and proprietary software is unethical.

So to say the FSF should stop talking about the Evils of Proprietary Software is entirely missing the point. It's like telling the Catholic Church to stop calling Satanists evil. Fighting the iniquities of proprietary software is the FSF's raison d'etre. You might not agree with them, but that is no reason for the FSF to stop. If you want people to promote the use of Free/Open Source Software because of some real or imagined technical superiority, there's a group just for you: the Open Source Initiative. But don't tell the FSF that they should also do that. The FSF does not exist to do that. They exist to call proprietary software evil. If you don't like that... so what?

Sealbhach
September 10th, 2009, 01:19 AM
Please, try to get your heads around this: The Free Software Foundation do not believe that Free/Open Source Software is technically better than proprietary software. That's something that the Open Source Initiative believe - not the FSF.

The FSF say we should all use Free Software because they believe Proprietary Software is Evil. Whether or not you believe this is irrelevant: This is what the FSF believe. They don't urge us to use Free Software because the "bazaar" model of software development produces superior product - they want us to use Free Software because they think it is ethical, and proprietary software is unethical.

This is sensible.

.

Mateo
September 10th, 2009, 01:32 AM
I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread saying stuff like "FSF should promote open source/say how good Linux is instead of telling us Microsoft is evil."

What is the deal with this ignorance? Do you people really not know what the FSF is all about? Or do you just want to impose your views on others?

Please, try to get your heads around this: The Free Software Foundation do not believe that Free/Open Source Software is technically better than proprietary software. That's something that the Open Source Initiative believe - not the FSF.

The FSF say we should all use Free Software because they believe Proprietary Software is Evil. Whether or not you believe this is irrelevant: This is what the FSF believe. They don't urge us to use Free Software because the "bazaar" model of software development produces superior product - they want us to use Free Software because they think it is ethical, and proprietary software is unethical.

So to say the FSF should stop talking about the Evils of Proprietary Software is entirely missing the point. It's like telling the Catholic Church to stop calling Satanists evil. Fighting the iniquities of proprietary software is the FSF's raison d'etre. You might not agree with them, but that is no reason for the FSF to stop. If you want people to promote the use of Free/Open Source Software because of some real or imagined technical superiority, there's a group just for you: the Open Source Initiative. But don't tell the FSF that they should also do that. The FSF does not exist to do that. They exist to call proprietary software evil. If you don't like that... so what?

People criticize religious groups all of the time. Believing in something doesn't make you immune to criticism.

23meg
September 10th, 2009, 03:29 AM
People criticize religious groups all of the time. Believing in something doesn't make you immune to criticism.

And likewise, being open to criticism doesn't make you wrong for sticking to your ideals.

And believing in a religion is a vastly different phenomenon than "believing" in a certain unorthodox ethics of software production and distribution. The latter is purely ideological, and ideology is not belief.

RiceMonster
September 10th, 2009, 03:35 AM
Or do you just want to impose your views on others?

The FSF say we should all use Free Software because they believe Proprietary Software is Evil.

So it's okay for the FSF to impose their views on others, but not for others to do the same? Saying something is evil means you should not be involved in it. You're suggesting that it's ok for the FSF to tell people not to use proprietary software, but it's not ok for people to say the FSF shouldn't say proprietary software is evil. Hypocritical much?

I also bet that if Microsoft said Linux was evil, you would be angry. Oh but, this is what Microsoft believes! You can't tell them to stop believing it, right?

MasterNetra
September 10th, 2009, 03:38 AM
so it's okay for the fsf to impose their views on others, but not for others to do the same? Saying something is evil means you should not be involved in it. You're suggesting that it's ok for the fsf to tell people not to use proprietary software, but it's not ok for people to say the fsf shouldn't say proprietary software is evil. Hypocritical much?

+1

and oh my goodness first time I landed a post on the 100 spot! ^.^

lykwydchykyn
September 10th, 2009, 03:58 AM
So it's okay for the FSF to impose their views on others, but not for others to do the same? Saying something is evil means you should not be involved in it. You're suggesting that it's ok for the FSF to tell people not to use proprietary software, but it's not ok for people to say the FSF shouldn't say proprietary software is evil. Hypocritical much?


I don't think the point is that you may not criticize. The point is that the criticism in question misses the mark. Consider vegetarians, for instance. Some people believe that others should not eat meat because it is unhealthy, or they don't like the taste. Other people think that killing animals for food is wrong, regardless of whether it's healthy or tasty. For the former, arguing the benefits of a vegetarian diet is pertinent. For the latter, it's irrelevant; no amount of practical benefit overrides the moral concern.

I think t0p makes a good point that the FSF is not really about the technical superiority of FOSS, but rather the wrongs of proprietary software. Yes, you CAN say they should produce better software, or promote the good aspects of free code, but it's not really their point at all. Their point is that proprietary licensing and other restrictions are simply wrong, even if it makes for better software.

That's not to say I agree with them, but I think understand their POV.

And for what it's worth... putting a gun to someone's head is "imposing". Passing laws making something illegal is "imposing". Raiding someone's home, taking away their proprietary software and burning it is "imposing".

Holding a demonstration to make people aware of your beliefs is not "imposing".

RiceMonster
September 10th, 2009, 04:16 AM
I don't think the point is that you may not criticize. The point is that the criticism in question misses the mark. Consider vegetarians, for instance. Some people believe that others should not eat meat because it is unhealthy, or they don't like the taste. Other people think that killing animals for food is wrong, regardless of whether it's healthy or tasty. For the former, arguing the benefits of a vegetarian diet is pertinent. For the latter, it's irrelevant; no amount of practical benefit overrides the moral concern.

I think t0p makes a good point that the FSF is not really about the technical superiority of FOSS, but rather the wrongs of proprietary software. Yes, you CAN say they should produce better software, or promote the good aspects of free code, but it's not really their point at all. Their point is that proprietary licensing and other restrictions are simply wrong, even if it makes for better software.

That's not to say I agree with them, but I think understand their POV.

And for what it's worth... putting a gun to someone's head is "imposing". Passing laws making something illegal is "imposing". Raiding someone's home, taking away their proprietary software and burning it is "imposing".

Holding a demonstration to make people aware of your beliefs is not "imposing".

I understood t0p's argument just fine. I don't think you understood mine. t0p argues that you cannot tell the FSF to stop talking about the evils about proprietary software because this is their belief. However, when the FSF talks about the evils of proprietary software, they are telling people they should not use it. Why is it ok for the FSF to tell people not to do something, but not ok for people to tell the FSF not to do something? It doesn't make sense. What they believe is irrelevant.

Also, posting a disgareement on the internet is not imposing either. I used that word, because t0p suggested it was when saying "Or do you just impose your views on others?"

Mateo
September 10th, 2009, 04:22 AM
Haha, FSF has a twitter account. Oh the irony.

http://twitter.com/gnulinux

RabbitWho
September 10th, 2009, 04:23 AM
Did they use Geocities Page Builder?

I can't actually read what it's saying, it's so ugly.

I can't read anything designed like an old nazi propaganda poster.


YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW BLACK YELLOW

RiceMonster
September 10th, 2009, 04:25 AM
Did they use Geocities Page Builder?

I can't actually read what it's saying, it's so ugly.

I can't read anything designed like an old nazi propaganda poster.


YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW BLACK YELLOW


Godwin's law

tsali
September 10th, 2009, 11:02 AM
Simply pathetic.

They SHOULD talk about what the products offer...not some fringe philosophy (how most perceive it). Talk about how linux can help people today, right now in their COMPUTING lives instead of trying to sell them on entire lifestyle...

Most folks would take one look at that page and rather quickly decide that linux is for kooks...

Frak
September 11th, 2009, 02:45 AM
so it's okay for the fsf to impose their views on others, but not for others to do the same? Saying something is evil means you should not be involved in it. You're suggesting that it's ok for the fsf to tell people not to use proprietary software, but it's not ok for people to say the fsf shouldn't say proprietary software is evil. Hypocritical much?

I also bet that if microsoft said linux was evil, you would be angry. Oh but, this is what microsoft believes! You can't tell them to stop believing it, right?
+2

koenn
September 11th, 2009, 02:55 PM
Simply pathetic.

They SHOULD talk about what the products offer...not some fringe philosophy (how most perceive it). Talk about how linux can help people today, right now in their COMPUTING lives instead of trying to sell them on entire lifestyle...


re-read t0p some 12 posts back, he makes a good point.

also, that "fringe philosophy" produced the GNU operating system that turned the kernel that Torvalds wrote, into something useful. That same philosophy produced the GPL, which greatly facilitated the 'bazaar' development model Linux and so many other open source projects depended on and created a legal framework for them.


This may be irrelevant to certain types of computer users (say, the "I want it all ! for free ! now ! in shiny colors just like windows !" crowd, the "All I want is a fast, safe and gratis torrent client to download my music and movies" sort, or the "I don't care about licenses as long as the software works" type).
Talking instead about "how Linux can help them in their computer needs" is equally irrelevant, as they don't distinguish between free software, freeware, or illegal free copies of software. The only remaining selling point then is : you won't need to run antivirus software.



However, if you're concerned about what computing, data processing, information and communication will look like 5, 10 or more years from now, the FSF's goals and philosophy are still relevant. And they are right to keep on making noise about it.

23meg
September 11th, 2009, 03:31 PM
Haha, FSF has a twitter account. Oh the irony.

http://twitter.com/gnulinux

The FSF is also known for single-handedly inventing 20th century capitalism, has on its own created the capitalist United States economy in which they operate, and consists of people who keep polluting the air with carbon dioxide by breathing.

Oh the irony.

Sealbhach
September 11th, 2009, 07:14 PM
I understood t0p's argument just fine. I don't think you understood mine. t0p argues that you cannot tell the FSF to stop talking about the evils about proprietary software because this is their belief. However, when the FSF talks about the evils of proprietary software, they are telling people they should not use it. Why is it ok for the FSF to tell people not to do something, but not ok for people to tell the FSF not to do something? It doesn't make sense. What they believe is irrelevant.

Also, posting a disgareement on the internet is not imposing either. I used that word, because t0p suggested it was when saying "Or do you just impose your views on others?"

What you getting so worked up about? It's just a computer[/URL], as you stated [URL="http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7888088&postcount=14"]here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7888526&postcount=17) and here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7888526&postcount=17). It makes me really wonder about your motivation.

.

RiceMonster
September 11th, 2009, 07:17 PM
What you getting so worked up about? It's just a computer[/URL], as you stated [URL="http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7888088&postcount=14"]here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7888526&postcount=17) and here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7888526&postcount=17). It makes me really wonder about your motivation.

.

I'm a Microsoft employee here to put a stop to Linux. That's my motivation.



No, actually I just have a bad habbit involving enjoying arguing. It's hard to resist the urge on the internet. I'm not really getting worked up, as you may think I am.

BigSilly
September 11th, 2009, 09:27 PM
It's the first time I've seen this campaign. It kinda upsets me a little bit to be honest, because it just undermines the phenomenal work that developers put into Linux and free software. Browsing through the site, and especially looking at this embarrassing video (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/windows7sins-teaser-video), leaves me feeling rather depressed altogether.

There are a lot of solid points that they make, and much of it is why I found my way to Linux and free software, but there's also a lot of raging fundamentalism from people who ought to know better and have better things to do.

arinlares
September 11th, 2009, 10:16 PM
I see this as possibly the best thing for free software. If it has Microsoft, and maybe even Apple, the least bit scared, then that means there is a chance for it to have it's own slot in the market. FSF and Microsoft bashing each other is only evidence that they acknowledge each other as equals. Why else would you be afraid of competition?

Frak
September 11th, 2009, 10:20 PM
FSF and Microsoft bashing each other is only evidence that they acknowledge each other as equals.

Microsoft bashes manufacturers who put Linux on hardware by default. The FSF recognizes Microsoft as their equal, Microsoft probably doesn't even realize the FSF exists (figuratively speaking).

chucky chuckaluck
September 11th, 2009, 10:30 PM
and especially looking at this embarrassing video (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/windows7sins-teaser-video)

it's almost as if they're making fun of real protests.

23meg
September 12th, 2009, 02:58 AM
However, if you're concerned about what computing, data processing, information and communication will look like 5, 10 or more years from now, the FSF's goals and philosophy are still relevant. And they are right to keep on making noise about it.

This is the bottom line.

You care? Fine; join in, contribute.

You care, but want the FSF to change their ways? Also fine, and the only real way to do it is to get involved with them and do it from the inside - making noise in a user chat forum won't accomplish anything. It's inevitable that within the next decade or two, the generation of hackers and activists that defined the FSF will largely be displaced by a younger generation in terms of having the majority of the activity, (and thus, the initiative), and there's hope for change in that future.

You don't care? Also fine; keep using free software if you'd like to, but be so kind as to refrain from low blows to the FSF, and the people who do care, in the form of mudslinging and FUD-spreading whenever the opportunity arises.