RE: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy

[Pete Morris]

Two issues here.

Firstly, it's obviously better to be a solutions provider, but pointing out 
problems is still useful. So it's not "moaning", it's giving feedback. How the 
free software movement chooses to respond to that feedback is entirely up to 
them, including choosing to ignore or discount it as not-helpful or 
not-positive or the like. But the question is often asked, "Why don't more 
people use/support/promote/want free software?", and the answer to that 
question is going to be negative reasons, not positive solutions. It's a lot 
easier to identify faults than invent solutions to them, so don't be surprised 
that the number of moans outweighs the number of solutions.

Secondly, the reason (in part) that there are so few solutions is that a lot of 
the solutions are actually compromises or middle-ground, and the free software 
movement is often notoriously opposed to such notions. A classic example would 
be the Debian-vs-Firefox issue, although there are countless others. So 
solutions to the general-masses problem include things that Canonical do 
already, such as including non-free components within Ubuntu like MP3 codecs, 
Flash plugins and closed-source hardware drivers. But some free software 
enthusiasts see such things as disgusting and abhorrent, and dream of a 
pure-bred operating system which has no compromise within it. So it is 
difficult to provide the solutions that are demanded, as the threshold for 
acceptance is often beyond the reach of easy implementation.

But since you asked, here are (off the top of my head) a few solutions that I 
suspect would dramatically increase the usage of free software ... don't be 
surprised if you don't like them...

1) Include a copy of Internet Explorer licensed from Microsoft with some 
distributions (this is hugely important for many people). Charge if necessary.
2) Work with Microsoft to make a [premium paid for] version of Office available 
on Ubuntu (this is a total show-stopper for many people; my partner used to use 
Ubuntu, until his university coursework required Microsoft Office documents, 
and OpenOffice couldn't handle pixel-perfect table layouts and fonts accurately)
3) Make all the restricted and proprietary components and features turn on by 
default
4) Sell copies of Ubuntu in nice shrink-wrapped boxes in PC World
5) Create distributions where the "tinker" element can be turned off, i.e. 
locked-down versions of the distribution, pre-configured to corporate 
requirements and policies

Those are just five off the top of my head, and I doubt they will be popular. 
But their popularity with the free software movement is the entire problem: 
it's not that there aren't solutions to the problem, it's that the solutions 
presented aren't deemed acceptable.

As always, it comes down to philosophical ideology rather than technical 
implementation.

Pete


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: 15 January 2011 03:52
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 09:40:59AM +0000, Pete Morris wrote:

> To give other slightly less theoretical (but equally preposterous in 
> my eyes) examples...
> 
> Why do people pay £15 to get into a "trendy club" where they can 
> listen to tunes they already own on their iPod and pay inflated prices 
> at the bar for flavoured toxic drinks that they know are going to make 
> them feel ill the next day?

We can’t just say they are idiots, can we?

So, instead of hypothesising why we can’t convey free software to the masses, 
why don’t you do something about it?  It’s no good just telling us that the way 
we are saying things doesn’t work very well with Joe Public.  If we knew better 
ways to spread the word, we would be doing it.  So, although I appreciate being 
told where I’m going wrong, I would also like some inkling of how to do it 
right.  If you can’t offer that, and can only moan that we do it wrong, then 
I’m going to get tired of you very quickly.

Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple 
system that works.—John Gall