Stallman: Can we rescue OLPC from Windows? [LWN.net]

Stallman: Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?

Posted May 1, 2008 18:07 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083)
In reply to: Stallman: Can we rescue OLPC from Windows? by itachi0
Parent article: Stallman: Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?

Aren't you the least bit concerned that the term "freetards" is entering mainstream usage when
describing hypocritical FLOSS evangelists? (For example, it's OK for Linux to compete with
Microsoft, but not for Microsoft to compete with Linux)

Regardless of how many times I've used the term myself in these comments, the media has
already picked up the term and identified what it means and the issues surrounding it. 

And it gives them a handy stick to beat us with.

"Hippies" and "communists" are outdated terms - "freetard" is going to run and run, not just
in the FLOSS area, but also in areas such as P2P. Already people are tying the issues
surrounding illegal P2P use with FLOSS as it's usually the same subset of people making the
loudest noises about both.

And asking questions such as "Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?" sparks off implications which
the media can pick up and run with.

Seriously, if you want the "freetard" term and stereotype to die out, then don't say things
that strengthen it.

OLPC doesn't need "rescuing" from anything but poor management. What OS it runs is irrelevant
if it does everything that it's intended to be used for - and it's the organisations that are
purchasing it in the hundreds of thousands that decide that.

(Log in to post comments)

Stallman: Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?

Posted May 2, 2008 2:52 UTC (Fri) by itachi0 (guest, #32049) [Link]

No, I'm not at all concerned that the term is supposedly entering the mainstream. I really
couldn't care less what the "mainstream" thinks about the software I use/develop. Other people
are free to use whatever crap closed-source software they want. 

You seem overly concerned with the "image" of free software. As far as I am concerned, as long
as I have access to well-written software that does what I need it to and that I can inspect,
modify and redistribute, I don't care what people who disagree with my views choose to label
me. Nor will I waste my time deriding them with stupid labels for their choice. They're as
free to make their choice as I am to make mine. That won't stop me from advocating free
software over proprietary software when I get the chance. 

RMS will always advocate free software. This is not news, and it will not change. Frankly I
find it nice that someone is there to counter the ridiculous amount of marketing propaganda
put forth by commercial software interests, even if he does get a bit fanatical about it.
Hardly different than calling the GPL a "virus" though.

Stallman: Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?

Posted May 2, 2008 10:49 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Aren't you the least bit concerned that the term "freetards" is entering mainstream usage when describing hypocritical FLOSS evangelists? [...] Regardless of how many times I've used the term myself in these comments, the media has already picked up the term and identified what it means and the issues surrounding it.

The main user of "freetard" appears to be Andrew Orlowski of The Register, who seems to use it as a blanket term to cover anyone from open source developers through digital rights activists and all the way to peer-to-peer file-sharers, although I note that since being flamed by someone coining the term "paytard" he has presumably had to refine his usage of the term somewhat. You would appear to be the other main user of the term, given the number of times you've dropped it into this discussion.

I doubt that the media, even beyond writers at The Register, have any precise definition of the term, other than it having something to do with "free" (mostly as in "free of charge") and it being an easy way to infuriate people, drive people to their site, increase page views, and so on. I have more respect for the guy who thought up "paytard", but then the antagonists of "Big Content" always have been more effective in delivering a coherent message to the masses.

Hardly hypocritical

Posted May 3, 2008 11:26 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Stallman undoubtedly has many flaws, but being "hypocritical" is hardly one of them. If there is someone who is uncompromising with his ethical views then he is the guy. The fact that you don't like some of his conclusions (while, I presume, sharing at least some of his principles) doesn't mean that they are somehow dishonest, as your choice of words suggests.

It is OK for Windows to compete with Linux when and where it makes sense. "Competition" in humanitarian projects is only good when it supports the humanitarian causes behind those projects; in this case one of the main goals was to deliver open platforms for learning, which Windows is not, no matter how much money it donates. Talk about hypocrites!

In other areas the call to competition is flawed for other reasons. On the desktop competition should be fine as long as it is fair, but competition with a convicted monopolist cannot be trusted to remain fair for long. Besides, I don't really think Microsoft needs your help, unless you are on their payroll.

Stallman: Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?

Posted May 4, 2008 19:19 UTC (Sun) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

Entering mainstream usage? I fail to see any chance that the New York Times is going to be
using such a word as "freetard". In fact, I'm rather unconcerned that any serious author
writing in any semi-formal medium will use the word "freetard", as it reeks of name calling,
instead of sophistication and intelligent debate.

Furthermore, if you push a idea, something that could change the world, there will be those
who make up names about you. There's no point in fighting it, and no actions on your part,
short of the most craven and worthless, will stop it. Why waste time worrying about that level
of critics?