Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Dec 2006 21:12 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The FSF today launched a campaign with a twofold mission of exposing the harms inflicted on computer users by the new Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free software alternatives that respect users' security and privacy rights. "Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade. It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does. Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new 'features' in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions. We'll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care", said FSF program administrator John Sullivan."
Thread beginning with comment 192917
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ...
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:45 UTC in reply to "..."
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

in my case the alternatives I've used in Linux to the software I use in Windows is just pathetic.

Then why not tell it to someone who can do something about it, instead of trolling about it on an OS forum?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 15th Dec 2006 22:49 in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Am I trolling?

Im just talking about my expericence here, so if the FSF want me to use Free software at least give me good options and if you thing calling the people expressing their opinion "troll" will help to the FSF cause then you are totally wrong.

In my opinion the people like you do more damage to the FSF than MS.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by twenex on Fri 15th Dec 2006 23:07 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

OK, so maybe "troll" was a bit strong.

Nevertheless, whatever problem you're having you'd have a lot more joy pointing out some missing features to the developers, than to random OSnews readers.

In my opinion people like you do more damage to MS than MS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Rayz on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:16 in reply to "RE: ..."
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

Then why not tell it to someone who can do something about it, instead of trolling about it on an OS forum?

Well, if the FOSS community spent half as much energy on actually getting their apps as functional and as polished as most commercial Windows applications, as they do on attacking Microsoft, then you you wouldn’t need to launch desperate attention-seeking campaigns like this one.

Microsoft is so hamstrung by legal troubles of its own making, FOSS has a clear path to compete and make real inroads on the desktop. But what do you do? The same old lame marketing tactics that any decent Business Studies course will tell you, are doomed to failure.

You spend all your energy focussing on why folks shouldn’t use Windows, instead of telling them why they should be using free software. That kind of negative campaigning will never work.

You scream “but Windows crashes all the time!” and folk just say “Mmm .. XP has been running rock solid for me. I wonder what else they’re lying about?”

You scream “but there are billions of viruses for Windows!” and folk say “MMMmmm ... well there are millions of lethal viruses for humans, but like my XP box, I don’t have any.”

“You scream Microsoft is evil!” and folk say “Will you please shut up, I’m trying to play Halo”.

But my favourite tactic is the desperate back pedal.

For years, the anti-MS crowd has bleated on that Windows XP is bloated, bug-infested, insecure crash-happy mess. And now along comes Vista. With the prospect of the security argument going out the window (‘scuse me), they find they have nothing much left to throw, so what’s the best they can manage?

Stick with XP ... it’s good enough.

That really is extraordinarily lame. But hardly surprising since negative campaigning is all that seems to get used by the Anti-MS crowd these days. What’s wrong? Doesn’t free software have any merits worth talking about? Of course it does! So stop talking about MS and start talking about free software!

When I think of the number of times that I’ve tried to get a free package going with a client, only to have some smirking salesman point to a forum full of FOSS lunatics screaming about tearing down the walls of something or other ....

Y’know when Apple started winning?
Ipod? No.
Switch to Intel? No.

I’ll tell you. Apple started winning when Steve Jobs woke up and realised that Microsoft doesn’t have to lose, for Apple to win.

The iPods are a hit because they support Windows
Macs are winning because folk can run Windows on them if they want to.

If you see business as an battlefield with no flexibilty or compromise, then you will lose. It really is that simple.

Likewise, if you brand anyone who disagrees with you as a troll or a zealot, then that says to me that your platform cannot stand up to criticism; in which case, I’ll steer clear of it, because software that cannot be criticised, won’t improve fast enough for me.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by n4cer on Sat 16th Dec 2006 07:52 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Rayz, if I had any votes left, you'd definitely get a +1.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by twenex on Sat 16th Dec 2006 10:57 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Microsoft is so hamstrung by legal troubles of its own making, FOSS has a clear path to compete and make real inroads on the desktop. But what do you do? The same old lame marketing tactics that any decent Business Studies course will tell you, are doomed to failure.

You spend all your energy focussing on why folks shouldn’t use Windows, instead of telling them why they should be using free software. That kind of negative campaigning will never work.

You scream “but Windows crashes all the time!” and folk just say “Mmm .. XP has been running rock solid for me. I wonder what else they’re lying about?”

You scream “but there are billions of viruses for Windows!” and folk say “MMMmmm ... well there are millions of lethal viruses for humans, but like my XP box, I don’t have any.”

[i]Yes, and we sit here wondering what useful feature MS Office has that OO.org supposedly doesn't.

[i]“You scream Microsoft is evil!” and folk say “Will you please shut up, I’m trying to play Halo”.

But my favourite tactic is the desperate back pedal.

For years, the anti-MS crowd has bleated on that Windows XP is bloated, bug-infested, insecure crash-happy mess. And now along comes Vista. With the prospect of the security argument going out the window (‘scuse me), they find they have nothing much left to throw, so what’s the best they can manage?

Stick with XP ... it’s good enough.


Good enough...if you're going to use Windows anyway.

Likewise, if you brand anyone who disagrees with you as a troll or a zealot, then that says to me that your platform cannot stand up to criticism

Yes, sounds a little like Windows users like NotParker. Not like many Linux users I know.

As for the rest, (especially since you don't see people like Torvalds, Cox or Tridgell posting on how MS software is crap on OSnews or other forums, anymore than you see people like Ballmer posting on how Linux users are lamers - oh wait, you do; nevermind), next time reduce RSI by simply typing:

"Blah".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by djst on Sat 16th Dec 2006 12:31 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

You spend all your energy focussing on why folks shouldn’t use Windows, instead of telling them why they should be using free software. That kind of negative campaigning will never work.

You scream “but Windows crashes all the time!” and folk just say “Mmm .. XP has been running rock solid for me. I wonder what else they’re lying about?”

You scream “but there are billions of viruses for Windows!” and folk say “MMMmmm ... well there are millions of lethal viruses for humans, but like my XP box, I don’t have any.”

“You scream Microsoft is evil!” and folk say “Will you please shut up, I’m trying to play Halo”.


This is the best comment I've read on OSNews for a long time. If I could, I would have voted +1.

Edited 2006-12-16 12:32

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by archiesteel on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:13 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Likewise, if you brand anyone who disagrees with you as a troll or a zealot, then that says to me that your platform cannot stand up to criticism; in which case, I’ll steer clear of it, because software that cannot be criticised, won’t improve fast enough for me.

Rayz, do you realize that, if you were really consistent with that philosophy of yours, you'd have to "steer clear" of Windows, if only because of NotParker, tomcat, and the like? These people will insult anyone who disagrees with them and dares to criticize Microsoft and/or Windows.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You have to stop using Windows now, or risk not being true to your own words.

That's okay, as you'll find that Linux should not only improve "fast enough" for you, it also improves a lot faster than Windows. Compare the evolution of the two over the same time period and you'll see. Right now, Vista and Linux are about on par...in two years' time, Linux will be well ahead of Windows, IMHO.

Edited 2006-12-16 18:14

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Dec 2006 18:21 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

"Well, if the FOSS community spent half as much energy on actually getting their apps as functional and as polished as most commercial Windows applications, as they do on attacking Microsoft, then you you wouldn’t need to launch desperate attention-seeking campaigns like this one."

How do you know? On the contrary, one could argue that a sufficient amount of exposure of Microsoft during its appeal of its loss to the DOJ might have resulted in its conviction holding, as it should have. Then it would have received more than a slap on the wrist, and the computing world would have advanced further today in a more competitive environment.

"Microsoft is so hamstrung by legal troubles of its own making, FOSS has a clear path to compete and make real inroads on the desktop. But what do you do? The same old lame marketing tactics that any decent Business Studies course will tell you, are doomed to failure."

Those legal troubles in part result from the opposition to Microsoft that you decry above. Such opposition deserves far more credit than you think. Regarding marketing, what about anti-smoking ads? According to you, such tactics are doomed to failure. The FSF realizes that "Vista" is a buzzword to computer illiterate people, and the FSF will be a tiny effort against the enormous hype machine. In any case, they could use improvements, and specific criticisms of BadVista.org are useful.

"For years, the anti-MS crowd has bleated on that Windows XP is bloated, bug-infested, insecure crash-happy mess. And now along comes Vista. With the prospect of the security argument going out the window (‘scuse me), they find they have nothing much left to throw, so what’s the best they can manage?

Stick with XP ... it’s good enough.
"

The caution and skepticism over Vista goes well beyond who you label as the "anti-MS crowd"; BadVista.org, boycottnovell.org, etc. will continue to point out those voices.

"If you see business as an battlefield with no flexibilty or compromise, then you will lose. It really is that simple."

Do you have any principles at all over which you will not compromise, such as treating people fairly? You will have to admit that you do. The FSF has a small set of principles and makes compromises all of the time as long as the principles are intact, such as during the entire GPLv3 license drafting process. But principles are what they are because they are not subject to compromise -- just consider the definition:

principle
n 1: a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct; "their principles of composition characterized all their works"

"Likewise, if you brand anyone who disagrees with you as a troll or a zealot, then that says to me that your platform cannot stand up to criticism; in which case, I’ll steer clear of it, because software that cannot be criticised, won’t improve fast enough for me."

This is yet another indication that your post was written in too much of a hurry. Suppose some random person Jack loves Microsoft software, and Jack brand all dissenters as trolls or zealots. By your reasoning, because Jack behaves this way, Microsoft software cannot stand up to criticism and you will steer clear of it.

Anyone who thinks about what you write will see it as fatally flawed, as I have shown. You can do better, and those who blindly agreed with your post can do a lot better.

P.S. Just to show that there are FSF supporters who recognize the failings of the FSF, I note the following. I think that the FSF gets too arrogant sometimes, but it is important to show how. I think they were too arrogant about the Hurd way back, and that if they had less arrogance they would have produced a better kernel. Another example is that sometimes in some of their speeches, they speculate too much that Microsoft will be much diminished, say, within a decade. I disagree, assuming that Microsoft changes their business model sufficiently. However, the occasional arrogance of the FSF in no way detracts from the principles they espouse.

On the other hand, many of us who disagree with Microsoft, do not hate it. We hate many of its practices, and we believe that it, in principle, could turn around one eventually and become everyone's favorite company. However, that remains just a hope tempered with a quite different expectation.

Reply Parent Score: 4