RE: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy

[Pete Morris]

This has tangented a long way from my original comments RE Richard Stallman and 
his handcuffs. But it demonstrates the point rather well that Richard's 
argument has little basis to it. The handcuffs analogy gives the implication 
that it is patently obvious that everyone should prefer free software, and thus 
anyone not using it is clearly either delusional or totally misinformed. As 
we've seem from these posts, it's much more complicated than that, and there 
are a variety of reasons why people may not want to use free software.

In some ways I agree with Simon that playing the numbers game in terms of 
market share or installation bases is rather academic, but it is still 
reflected in the somewhat evangelistic nature of the free software movement. 
There was a discussion recently about holding a sort of information day to 
introduce free-radicals to the wonders of using free software. There is a 
notion that people need to be "informed" or "educated" about free software, 
with an implication once they have heard they will flock to it. I don't think 
this is a helpful belief.

In answer to yours and Mr Ray's question, the university in question is the 
University of East Anglia, but it's common to most universities. It is not that 
a university requires students to purchase Microsoft software, rather they 
purchase a campus licence under a system like CHEST, and then students are 
given a free copy of Windows/Office/whatever whilst they are doing the course. 
In this sense, the university is not mandating that a student spend their own 
money, but they are mandating that they only accept a certain file format. This 
isn't because they are trying to strangle students or force proprietary 
software upon them, but because it is easier to work to a standardised format. 
If you are trying to mark essays, you don't want them being submitted in 40 
different file formats from a plethora of minority wordprocessors; they same 
with distributing course notes and material and the like. Rightly or wrongly, 
the majority of the world use Microsoft Word for their wordprocessor, so it 
makes sense to use the same when choosing your standard. As I said, OpenOffice 
gave it a good shot, but as anyone knows who's used it, it sometimes struggles 
with very precise table layouts and the like. You can't [easily] run Microsoft 
Office on Ubuntu, and dual-boot was proving a faff, so off came Linux and on 
went Windows. Of course there are other alternatives, but that is just an 
example of someone who stopped using Ubuntu and why they stopped using it.

Did my partner stop using Ubuntu because he decided that being restricted 
["wearing handcuffs"] was the way forward? No, quite the opposite, he found 
that using free software was akin to wearing handcuffs, so ironically he was 
more "free" when using the proprietary software. It all depends on your 
definition of "free": not everyone wants to be 'free' to modify the source 
code, some people want to be 'free' to use the software they are familiar with 
and be 'free' to have it work the way they were expecting. 

Pete


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: 17 January 2011 18:34
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:39:25AM +0000, Pete Morris wrote:
> Firstly, it's obviously better to be a solutions provider, but pointing out 
> problems is still useful.

As I said: “I appreciate being told where I’m going wrong”.

> So it's not "moaning", it's giving feedback.

Ok, you weren’t going “muuuuhhhhhh”.  It is feedback, just a lot of negative, 
or rather non‐constructive feedback.

> 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.

I’m not surprised.  I’m saying that if all I ever hear is nothing constructive 
I’m going to tire of it, probably end up ignoring it.
After all, I know I benefit from free software.  If others’ just can’t or won’t 
see that it benefits them too, in my own selfish little way I’m going to stop 
caring about them and move on.

> 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.

Yes, and I think it’s right to be so, I’m opposed to such notions.  The aim is 
to have systems fully supported by free software so people are not tied back by 
proprietary software.  All it takes in one piece of proprietary software to 
reduce your freedoms.

> 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

Usage of free software is often cited as some sort of metric or benchmark, 
often along with mention of so‐called incentives such as bundling proprietary 
software.  The aim to increase usage is mis‐guided, and at best secondary to 
primary aims, which are making people aware of what free software is and what 
its advantages are.

> ... don't be surprised if you don't like them...

I’m not surprised, I sort of knew this was coming before I had finished reading 
the first paragraph. :)

> 1) Include a copy of Internet Explorer licensed from Microsoft with 
> some distributions (this is hugely important for many people). Charge 
> if necessary.

Although I didn’t expect IE.  With people being advised to move away from IE, 
the only advantage I see is for those in government organisations where its use 
is requisite.  I’m finding that more companies are making the move towards 
mandating alternative browsers in their policies, and the use of backwards 
intranets that only work in ancient versions of IE is declining.

> 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)

Users aren’t the only people who can be educated.  May I ask which university 
(and which department if relevant)?

> 3) Make all the restricted and proprietary components and features 
> turn on by default

I think if you do this it hides the message.  Remember that we’re not primarily 
about getting people to use free software, we’re about advocating the free 
software philosophy.

> 4) Sell copies of Ubuntu in nice shrink-wrapped boxes in PC World

Does anyone actually buy their operating systems standalone?  I think OEM 
installs are the way to go, but I recall Windows OEMs being bullied into not 
providing alternatives.  Does that still happen?

> 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

Microsoft doesn’t even do this for Windows.  They do, however, provide template 
group policies that can be based on for corporate policies.  I expect most 
companies in need of this to have staff with a non‐basic level of competence in 
system administration.  If they don’t, they should seriously consider getting 
some.

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