Well, this is hardly a kosher topic to talk about - people get up in arms about the idea of Open Source and the free software movement.
Recently I was on the FSF browsing about when I found quite an interesting website:
BadVista.org What the hell??? Now, I am quite open-minded about open software, but I found this website just childish. The reason for the existence of this site is labeled as:
"The BadVista campaign is an advocate for the freedom of computer users, opposing adoption of Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free (as in freedom) software alternatives."
Personally - I love Linux (GNU/Linux for those who are of the stoic nature), I use Fedora on my personal servers and Gentoo on some desktops, and would use other Free and Open Source Software when given the chance. However this campaign is a pie-in-the-face to the whole idea of Free Software. From the source (
http://www.gnu.org/) of the ideology comes the statement that free software comes with freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Perhaps the most important construct we have to make is the distinction of corporate environments. Microsoft is a commercial entity; a public company governed by its shareholders - and to these shareholders Microsoft must answer the question of how well it is using their money. The Free Software Foundation (
http://www.fsf.org/) is a non-profit organization dependent of donations. Its funding of 'important projects' is the only direction of finance flow created by the interactions of funders and projects. There is no payment back to the people funding.
In the corporate world, finance has to flow both ways: Whether its payment of cash for goods, or a service. That is perhaps one of the clearest reasons why Free Software has failed to be swept up: It does not have a steady market recourse - the funds that are put into it, go through it, but never return. Hence the financial system is very lopsided and is potentially a bucket with no bottom for investors.
The converse system that Microsoft is running on returns to the investors at least a small portion of what they put in (sure - the risks of bankruptcy are there, but there is hope with Microsoft shareholders to gain a return).
With this important concept in mind, why is the BadVista.org campaign so stupid, childish and a bad face for the FSF foundation? Well, financiers are putting in thousands of dollars into software development for what reason? To make better software than the guy next door. That is the
only reason that there is competition over GNU operating systems and Microsoft operating systems. However, Microsoft tends to emphasize
why their software, OSes, and philosophy is better, while GNU / FSF tend to emphasize
that their software is better.
I could not find a reference on the BadVista.org website that showed that Free Software was better. All it showed was that
"The BadVista campaign is an advocate for the freedom of computer users, opposing adoption of Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free (as in freedom) software alternatives." The BadVista campaign bad mouthes Vista (ok - thats what its there for) and is supposed to promote free software alternatives (
such as? There are no alternatives. The BadVista campaign says that there are alternatives, and that it promotes their use, but doesn't say what those alternatives really are!)
How is Free Software supposed to compete in the corporate world where most of the important decisions are made on virtues not on hype? There is little in the BadVista campaign that says how Free Software is better. By implication, it suggests that Free Software
in general is better, but that is always a bad thing to do. Sure, there is bad Microsoft software, and there is also bad GNU software.
While the FSF is a good idea to lobby mega-corporations such as Microsoft into being more consumer orientated, it really should curb the 'extremist' groups in its philosophical war as they are the ones that give the whole FSF a bad name. Since when did jumping around in yellow rain-coats and shouting that Vista is bad at a Vista party make anyone popular? (
http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/a-badvista-at-microsofts-new-york-launch-parties)
What are your thoughts?