| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
the pointthe pointPosted Apr 12, 2006 21:28 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: First "Firefox Flicks" released by pbardet Parent article: First "Firefox Flicks" released
But why do we want anyone to use Firefox? Why not tell people to use Netscape? or Opera? Both offer technical advantages over Internet Explorer.
If we are trying to spread software which gives users certain rights which we would like to become a social norm, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot if the medium contradicts the message.
What if some video playing software was the hottest free software right now, and their website only worked in Internet Explorer because they a certain IE-only feature to show off the true potential?
(Log in to post comments)
the point Posted Apr 13, 2006 2:40 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] But why do we want anyone to use Firefox? Why not tell people to use Netscape? or Opera? Both offer technical advantages over Internet Explorer.We, LWN readers, are different. I, for one, mostly care that Microsoft loses its monopoly and that the sites I care about work in the browsers I use. If we are trying to spread software which gives users certain rights which we would like to become a social norm, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot if the medium contradicts the message.I agree. But the problem is not with Firefox. Theora has a long way to go before it becomes as accepted as PNG. Maybe Theora links should be offered as an alternative. What if some video playing software was the hottest free software right now, and their website only worked in Internet Explorer because they a certain IE-only feature to show off the true potential?That's a bad comparison. The website is more than an ad. It carries development news, it directs users to downloads, it allows to see the documentation, it may allow to report bugs. In many cases I do care whether the developers would listen to me if I have any problems. I don't care how the software is advertised (e.g. only in a language I don't understand).
the point Posted Apr 14, 2006 11:50 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > that Microsoft loses its monopoly
Is it really true that you just don't want MS to have a monopoly? Would you be happy if RealNetworks took over as the Monopoly holder?
Or is it that you don't like society's technical direction to be dictated by a company and you would prefer that it was directed by the software users?
If the latter, then the only sustainable solution I see is to ensure that all software users are not fettered in ways that prevent this. The end goal is for software users to have a minimum standard of rights, like the free labour movement got for workers. Today, software users can take these rights, by using free software.
Maybe this is the gap that the free software movement has to bridge: the gap between "I just want this one problem fixed", and "I use free software the proprietary approach leads to a whole nest of problems".
|
|
||||||||||||