As people have already said here, free software experience is better with devices made to work originally with free software.
Some strange assumptions that I have seem so far about the free software philosophy are: * "Those who support free software must use only free software". They must only teach, recommend, and install free software, but it's not always possible for them to use only free software. If he does teach/install/recommend non-free software, and if you really take into consideration the time in which the action was made (because software also evolves), then you're more than welcome to give that "free software supporter" a nice warning of your choice. Besides, instead of messing up with his public image just because he is simply using non-free software isn't actually going to help him with the moral, or even ethical, dilemma that he's having, you should instead help him to use free software. * "If someone wants to use free software then we must always make a straight forward switch to free software". Just like indirectly stated above, every person has it's own pace and challenges to overcome in order to switch to using only free software. * "If we can make gradual switches to free software, that means a free software supporter can install non-free software for the user". Definitely not. Hire someone else to do the work to your mate. * "Our work is done. The user is now using some free software". And if I were to make you a half-baked bread, would it taste good? * "Free software is against capitalism". * "We need free software for voting". That's actually dangerous considering that the free software philosophy helps achieve democracy, and as such the current position of the philosophy is against computers for voting.
