>What freedoms are we talking about here? Freedom to modify the source? Like I said: since I'm
not a coder, that particular benefit is meaningless to me.
For example the freedom to help your neighbour. It doesn't always mean you're the one giving
help, it also means the freedom to be the one helped, the neighbour in this case.
Those who cannot code Free Software should not get in the way of those coding Free Software.
And in my view being a champion for installing non-free software on a free system does mean
"getting in the way."
>I'm not telling anyone to jump when I tell them to jump. What I AM saying is that "I want to
do certain things with my computer, and for my needs, Linux is not suitable". What do you
suggest I should do? Give up my photography-hobby (for example) while developers work on an
That's a bit of an overstatement. I think it was perfectly possible to have photography as a
hobby before computers even existed. I see no harm in reverting some of the practices that
demand the use of proprietary software to a more basic form, especially since it's just a
>Make do with apps that have maybe 10% of the functionality I can find in those evil
It's a start. You could fill in the other 90% with technology that has been around for a long
>And for what? For a benefit (open source) that does not directly benefit me?
Well, I guess there's the point of contention. If all one seeks from software is how it
benefits one directly right at that moment, without regard to anything or anyone, then it's
true there are, and will likely always be, better systems available.
I don't feel you see it that way, but I'm trying to explain why some (like me) are opposed to
the advocacy of adding "mostly harmless" non-free software to an otherwise free system.
>Linux does not exist in a bubble.
GNU/Linux *does* exist in a bubble. Within that bubble it is blissfully shielded to some
degree from anti-social practices. And any software that threatens to upset that should be
>If Windows or Mac do the things users want to do, while Linux does not, there's no chance for
For me this means the wants of users just have to change. If they cannot appreciate the
freedom, and to some degree, the social responsibility that comes with it, it's lost before
they even got it.
>People will keep on using proprietary software. Is THAT what we want?
The difference between people running (for example) Ubuntu with all proprietary "additions"
and OSX or ms windows is negligable.
So, yes, since adding proprietary software to free systems and propagating it as "value added"
is a zero-sum game. These users might just as well keep running their old proprietary os.
And, no; since it is not what we want, we shouldn't even begin adding proprietary software to
a free system.