LDrumbler wrote: > You know what? That whole zealous phase I went through about freedom > is over. I'm no longer a purist for freedom. I just want software > that works.
I can sympathise (and share) your frustration that free programs are, unfortunately, not always able to replace proprietary programs. However I think that this is a direct result of the proliferation of proprietary software, that users are not collectively in control of the future of their computing. This is the reason why I keep using free software. > Most people don't need those freedoms. Most people don't modify > their software; they run it. Most people cannot program; they just > want the software to do their rapid mathematical calculations and > display the appropriate lights. I disagree with part of this point. The freedoms don't just apply to programmers, which is why the freedom to distribute programs in modified and unmodified forms were created, as well as the freedom to run a program for any purpose. Some examples of why software freedom matters for non-technical people: - Users would be in a better position to prevent e-waste if interested programmers collectively decided to support older hardware. In contrast, companies like Apple don't support their older hardware and by using proprietary software, users are collectively not in a position to ever support this older hardware. - Most Windows users might not be able to write programs, but they would be free from some forms of surveillance if a program wanted to remove the surveillance functions from a hypothetically free Windows OS. - Proprietary software companies (such as Adobe, Autodesk) would not have less power to change their EULAs to contain whatever terms they want if users could use the files they created with equivalent free programs. - ... etc. The point is that the advantages of users having control are only limited to your imagination. Andrew
