Free Software Foundation throwing a hissy fit over Windows 7

Me too

"With the threat to withdraw their support, they try to strongarm you into adopting new versions of their software even when you don't need them "

I'm going to assume they're talking about xp...which is how many years old now? Microsoft has the right to move on, and they need to. They aren't forcing anybody to adopt new versions, they are offering it. This organization is sounding like PETA, who I dearly hate.

Adam, I love you and I want to have your babies.

Yeah the article was hostile, but the FSF letter sounds even worse.

"The root cause of this dependency is proprietary software (not free/libre) and with the release of Windows7, you have an opportunity to break your organizations dependency on it"

Basically its saying that if its not free, its crap. I lol'd at the point where they said that Open-Source material was safer. In theory, yes because so many people have access to it... in reality it also means hackers have easy access to it and can break it easier than say a closed-source entity.

"I'm curious about how much money donated to the FSF in the name of software development was expended in the creation of this campaign..." (I wonder how much money donated to Greenpeace in the name of feeling good about yourself for donating was expended in the creating of campaigns to create environmental awareness).

Was it a slow news day? As a fellow blogger, I know the feeling of having to fight the temptation to post simply for the sake of posting as well as for sexing up a post for increased views. I'm proud to say that I almost always win. You sir, however, did not.

As a man who has used Windows since v3.1, and is currently dual-booting Vista and Ubuntu, I think I'm in a decent-enough position to see the proprietary vs. free software debate from both sides. That being said, after reading the Free Software Foundation's letter in full, I see absolutely no problem with either the language or the accuracy of the content.

Most businesses use some form of Windows. Microsoft has failed with Vista, most notably with regards to steep system requirements and a buggy start leading to a terrible reputation which Vista no longer deserves (for the most part). Business has stayed away from the Vista albatross and stuck with XP, a better OS in almost every respect, and Microsoft has threatened to stop supporting it several times, essentially forcing companies to spend (in some cases) millions in new Windows licenses and support simply because Microsoft wants to sell more software.

The FSF letter makes mention of Linux several times. Microsoft has engaged in your "slander and smear tactics" numerous times. From Bill Gates' famous comment equating open-source advocates to communists, to Microsoft's giving $86 to the SCO Group (a company that essentially attempted to take legal ownership of the Linux kernel), to the several internal Microsoft memos known as the "Halloween documents," to Microsoft's distorted "Get the Facts" campaign, to Ballmer belittling non-proprietary software as essentially worthless.

And I think you meant that the FSF "is using LIBEL and smear tactics against large software providers to try to attract people to their cause." Even so, to prove allegations of libel a party needs to make unsubstantiated allegations that would hurt the other party. The FSF has done a good job in substantiating their statements. If you had bothered to put the "fear and threats" quote in the proper context by simply including the next sentence which goes on to explain their position, you'd be making a proper argument. Instead, you conveniently omitted that sentence and went on to the third.

Selective editing to make the letter fit your own views is not only unconscionable, but also a sign of piss-poor reporting, even in an op-ed! Not to mention the name-calling: "zealots" (5), "hissy-fit" (1) "passive-aggressive" (1), as well as choice statements like...

"...the zealots manage to escape their cages and enter the real world."

"Anyone that reads this letter can clearly see that the Free Software Foundation is taking no objective tone to this campaign." (Have you ever heard of any activist organization taking an objective tone, ever?)

"Their letter reads as 'Microsoft is bad, open-source is good. Why? Because we say so. So switch!'" (This is a juvenile, gross oversimplification of the FSF letter).

"The best you can hope for, when getting support for open-source software, is to catch one of the project developers via email or some other method of communication, plead for their help, and hope they have time for you." (This is simply a lie. Unless we're only talking about the tiniest software project, there's almost always a help forum, as well as wikis and blogs, not to mention paid support, as in the larger Linux distributions).

"if you're paying for a piece of software, and it doesn't work quite the way you want it to, you can contact the support department of the software provider and ask for help from a professional, paid developer who works for the software company. This sort of contract provides assurance to enterprise customers that they won't be left out in the rain if they need changes made to the software they're licensing." ("Hi, I'm a small company with 200 Vista Ultimate licenses. I need you to CHANGE Vista to be able to ...umm, hello?" With Linux, for example, even a small company can hire a developer who can write the necessary patches to the kernel to get it to do what that company needs it to do. Your company needs [driver] to support [obscure hardware]? Develop it and send it upstream for approval).

"Oh, and speaking of being left out in the rain... last I checked, open-source project abandonment occurs much more often than proprietary software is tossed aside. Yes, of course, you can usually still get your hands on the source code to an abandoned open-source project, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be able to customize it or keep it up-to-date without outside help. That's why companies like Microsoft don't just drop software; they declare an end-of-life date, support the product until that date (and sometimes even after that date) and help customers move to newer versions of the product." (Unfair comparison. You're comparing small open-source projects that never get off the ground and are subsequently abandoned with large projects from Microsoft. If a large open-source project like Mozilla Firefox or OpenOffice.org or Ubuntu were to end, it would be properly terminated. There are plenty of small Windows apps that have been abandoned.)

"Expecting Microsoft to continue supporting your Windows NT 3.51 Server installation is akin to expecting your local auto parts store to carry spare parts for your Model T. One simply can't expect a company to maintain old versions of their product forever; if Microsoft were still supporting Windows releases from the early '90s, they certainly wouldn't have time to do anything else." (Nobody is expecting Microsoft to support software that came out in 1995. But we DO expect Microsoft to support stable, relevant software like Windows XP and XP Server, as does most of corporate America.)

"The moral of the story? The FSF is, once again, angry at the software corporations of the world for doing their job." (Can you expand on that? You haven't so far. Most sensible people would argue that the FSF's position is that they're "angry at the software corporations" for NOT doing their job, stifling FOSS [free and open source software], abusing their market share by forcing the 67% or so people who are still using XP to upgrade to an expensive, insecure OS that offers little in the way of improvements).

Mr. Maras, the next time you feel the urge to post, please do your homework beforehand. Biased, unfounded drivel like your article really brings down the otherwise excellent quality that DownloadSquad still has.

Fact: Microsoft threatens hardware vendors so that they preinstall Windows on their machine.

Really? No wonder you cannot get a Linux option from HP, Dell, IBM or others because Microsoft is forcing their OS on to all OEM hardware

Fact: In order to sell their new operating systems, Microsoft stops selling previous operating systemps (you can't find XP anymore, unless on netbooks).

Why would they? Seriously do you expect Ford to continue to make the original focus still? Actually they do give downgrade rights to enterprises as part of volume licensing agreements.

Fact: Microsoft tries to force users (or rather, hostages) into "upgrading" Windows XP to Windows 7 by threaten to withdraw their support.

Yes The FSF support policy is much better, here is a wrench go fix it yourself and after you just spent $XXX,XXX to hire a developer full time to fix and maintain your software only to realize that they are a tool that does not know what they are doing the FSF also expects organizations not to leech and essentially volunteer to help fix other peoples software problems while he is supposed to be working for that salary....Also do not forget to give away any competitive advantages they may develop internally

Seriously what are you smoking?

@BrianM:
Yes, MS used to force Windows on OEMs. That's changed recently, since they've been outed... but it's a fact. For an example, see: http://users.telenet.be/geertu/DELL_and_MS.html

There are plenty more such stories, and it's not a myth...

Again, it's not as true today, but then again, we don't see the back-door confidential dealings that MS has with OEMs... so we don't know for sure.

As for other companies providing Linux systems, I know Dell does so now, but for the home-market, HP does not (they do it for large businesses/servers), and IBM doesn't sell at all to the home market anymore (except for used PCs)... that's been sold to Lenovo, and they don't do it either. So, Dell is the only one to do so, so far...

As for your second statement, I agree that Linux isn't quite perfect for the desktop yet... but it's pretty darned good. However, in most cases, if the hardware works, then there is no issue with further/subsequent upgrades. I've had a few customers I have converted from XPHome installs to Ubuntu, and they simply LOVE the new OS, because it just works. All of them have been basic users, and still don't know anything about terminals in Linux... they simply don't need to, because it all just works.

I'll agree, if something breaks, it's not always apparent on how to fix it... even to me, as I continue to learn. But then again, who understood XP when it was first released? There were plenty of complaints, and there was a lot of learning involved... people just chose to learn XP instead of something else.

With regard to the OP, I will agree that the FSF's stance on this matter is pretty polarizing, and I certainly don't agree with it... but I do agree with what was said in their website - MS has had a stranglehold on the people, and I'm just happy to see it's changing... slowly, but surely.

Patent trolls might be the enemy, but he didn't specify them, Adam I believe was referring to the shotgun, blanket-fire blame that FSF seems to have against any patents on software.