fsuk-manchester
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy


From: Simon Ward
Subject: Re: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:46:05 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:33:49AM +0000, Pete Morris wrote:

> 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.

I might not go for delusional, and I might not say “totally
misinformed”.  I find it hard to believe that, if the concept of free
software is completely understood, and free software alternatives exist,
one would not prefer the free software alternatives (unless they had a
stake in the proprietary software producer).

Of course, it’s for the latter reason that many people still use
proprietary software—an alternative doesn’t exist, or if some free
software with similar functionality exists, it doesn’t have the same
feautures, and therefore is not seen as a viable alternative.

> 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.

They reasons are usually short‐sighted.  Getting encumbered with
proprietary software has shown time and time again that it’s much more
likely that people will be continually locked in by it, so compromising
on free software values for the sake of immediate “gratification” (some
would call it “pragmatism”, but I call it short‐sightedness), does not
turn out to be worth it.

> 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.

No, that’s not very helpful.  You educate people about the alternatives
to their shackled existence so they can make their own choices with a
bit more information.

> 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.

Not to all, thankfully.  At least I still get asked for help with LaTeX
occasionally from Manchester University students (although this may be
limited to certain faculties).

> 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.

That they weren’t intending to do the former does not mean by enforcing
the use of proprietary software that they are not doing it.

The latter is also suspect in the case of choosing Microsoft Word
documents, because while the OOXML format squirmed its way through a
standards process or two, it has been shown as difficult to reproduce
compliant documents.  The “standard” is very simply a very poor choice.
If there is one thing I believe in more than free software, it has to be
open, implementable standards (unencumbered by patents), and this mostly
because, without these, free software would simply have trouble
co‐existing with anything else.

> 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.

No it doesn’t.  It makes absolutely more sense to use free software that
everyone has access to, can import documents from the proprietary
software if needed (in the case of MS Office and ODF, it should be able
to import it, and you can also use the ODF Plugin to import and export
ODF).  There is simply no good reason to prefer proprietary software
over free software in this case.

> 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.

Stop trying to get it to emulate Microsoft Office and start using it on
its own merits.  I have had no trouble with table layouts.

> 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

That is only because he was in a proprietary cage which zapped him every
time he tried to break free.  The restrictions are put there by the
proprietary software.

> 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. 

Ok, at least here, I’m advocating free software as defined by the free
software definition.  I talk about the freedoms that are not taken away
from you with free software.  Other freedoms are secondary for this
purpose, and I don’t think it helps to bring them up every time we talk
about free software values.

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]