[Fsf-friends] FREEDOM, PHILOSOPHY and FREEDOM SOFTWARE

[Tarun Gaur]

>From: Harish Narayanan <harish@gamebox.net>
>To: Tarun Gaur <gaur_tarun@hotmail.com>
>CC: fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in
>Subject: Re: FREEDOM, PHILOSOPHY and FREEDOM SOFTWARE
>Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 19:12:55 -0400
>
>I can't help it, I better get these out of the way,
>- Curious, why do you keep switching to all capital letters at arbitrary 
>points. It doesn't add to clarity, but I keep interpreting it as you're 
>screaming.
>- Why don't you continue responses without changing the subject line?
>- Again, freedom is a noun. Freedom software sounds very odd
>- The reason that email you forwarded aggravated many people, was the way 
>in which it was suddenly thrust in. A little bit of etiquette can go a long 
>way.

(Interpretation is subject to the index of one's own mind, still respecting 
your opinion i will not use capital letters, though sometimes you have to be 
loud to reach some deaf ears)

I am not really worried about your obsession with nouns and verbs ... and 
neither did i thrust anything on anyone. It was not a junk proprietry 
windows source code that i forwarded or a secret note describing the rigging 
in American elections ... it was a simple mail describing an end user's 
experience with linux. I was not contesting the philosophy in this mail, 
nevertheless it seems like it is useless discussing it anymore ... cause i 
think very few are concerned on what is the importance of a good end user 
experience with free software and its relation to promotion of the 
philosophy.

>
>No one is misquoting anyone. Either your usage of words or tone seem to 
>mean or imply that free software as it is today is lacking. You keep 
>talking about, for instance,
>

Misquoting was a subtle expression ... seems like understanding the concern 
is a bit difficult for you here.

>- "improving" to attract the masses,
>- asking everyone to see it as an end user as opposed to a hacker (I safely 
>assumed this meant, hackers to some extent are more familiar with the 
>internals, so can deal easier with software that is superficially 
>unfriendly),
>- the end user is not happy, or
>- plugging all the holes so that the business men will be comfortable using 
>it.
>
>From these, among other things, some people will tend to make assumptions 
>regarding what you're trying to say. Maybe it is a fundamental 
>communication gap.
>
>As I've explained in another reply on another thread (because my mail 
>client likes to sort it like that), I bought my computer a while ago. 
>Things have changed in the recent past. But none of that matters, it isn't 
>too hard to wipe a hard drive. I was just trying to portray the hold 
>monopolies can have on vendors, and consequently the mind share they have 
>amongst users. If a person hadn't seen anything else, they'd be just as 
>happy with GNOME, KDE, Mac OS, Windows, BeOS, or whatever for basic needs 
>when introduced to them. It's when all you've ever seen and previously 
>worked on is, say, Windows, you will likely go with the most familiar even 
>when handed a choice. Even at the extent of loss of freedom.
>

Were we talking about monopolies of the vendors .. I think here mahesh 
agrees with me ... it was a matter of choice that i excercised and you did 
not.


>RedHat is doing exactly what free software from a corporate perspective is 
>all about. They sell entirely free software at large markup, purely for the 
>peace of mind their support offers to big companies. There is nothing 
>preventing you, an individual, who will not want to spend the 3500$,  from 
>obtaining any of it for free, studying it, modifying it, distributing it, 
>and of course, expanding upon it.
>
>[ http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel-rebuild.htm ]
>
>They've done more than most other companies ever will for the growth of 
>free software. For years they've allowed anyone and everyone to download 
>the huge ISO images of fully free distributions fully free of charge, for 
>instance. Who pays for their bandwidth? How do they survive if they can't 
>charge for services and support centered around their products as well? If 
>you find it exorbitantly expensive, find another source for your software. 
>That is what choice is about. If no one buys it, they will have to lower 
>their prices or die naturally. Don't criticize or get angry, just let your 
>choices do the talking.
>
>[ http://www.redhat.com/about/mission/business_model.html ]

Seems like you have something to do with Red Hat. Are you working for them 
or sell Red hat boxes ... Just plain curious (like you were .. not changing 
the subject lines)

If you are not ... it would really help the philosophy and the cause for you 
to focus on GNU/FSF.

>
>If you give an average person a very good program that satisfies their 
>immediate requirements, they will use it. If it were free, it would be 
>free, if it weren't, then it wouldn't be. I have an old  Mandrake box at 
>home which does everything my parents need, and which I can administer 
>remotely. Let's assume I haven't told them anything about the freedom 
>they're consequently enjoying. All they know is that they aren't paying for 
>it, it works well, and that while their friends get affected by viruses and 
>worms, they have no problems receiving email from their son. Where in this 
>was the philosophy communicated? If tomorrow the hard drive were to crash, 
>and the local computer man were to install Windows, they will adjust to it 
>and use it. I'm trying to indicate that philosophy and social implications 
>are bigger than just free software.
>

Sorry again here friend, but seems like you have graduated from your 
experience to your parents experience. I am talking about the generation 
maturing, the generation that is using XP and similar proprietry software. 
Give me a break. I repeat "you" and "I" are a MINORITY. We need to promote 
philosophy by using good free software as an ambassador to reach them and 
gain critical mass.

You seem to pick up sentences that suit a useless argument ... ignoring the 
importance of good end user experience everytime.

Did I ever say that philosophy is not imprortant. But i did say that free 
software is an ambassador of our philosophy. And philosophy and good free 
software compliment each other.

>Give them good free software and they will use it, sure. The software will 
>travel on it's own. This, and the communication of ideals aren't 
>necessarily linked. They are using it because it's good. Give them free 
>software and explain to them why being free makes it inherently good, and 
>they will still use it. But more importantly, the ideals have also spread.
>
>I am willing to take my chances on another kernel stepping up to the plate 
>even if the Linux kernel hadn't filled a hole in the GNU system. It might 
>have taken more time to reach the level of adoption we see today (or maybe 
>even less if it were even more popular for some reason), but it would have 
>happened independent of Linux. Point being, there would have been someone 
>who valued all this (and was skilled enough) to write things that worked to 
>fill this void.
>
>And all this about fierce promotion, gaining critical mass, mass revolution 
>and things like that. I really wish to know what it is your aim for all of 
>this is.

Please elaborate on what do you mean by "What my aim is" ... still i will 
answer ... My aim is to ensure that end user experience - especially 
negative is not repulsed. They are helped and philosophy reaches the masses 
through each one of them ... each single one of them.

Its not a start anymore ... Its time to reach critical mass.

hail fsf,
tarun

_________________________________________________________________
Contact brides & grooms FREE! http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmltag 
Only on www.shaadi.com. Register now!