Free Software Foundation throwing a hissy fit over Windows 7
The open source zealots over at the Free Software Foundation have left us here at Download Squad slightly speechless over a press release dropped in our never-ending pile of random crap from around the Internet. It would appear the FSF is pulling out all the stops in their new campaign (read: crusade) entitled Windows 7 Sins.The folks over at the FSF have been known for some time now for their stances against proprietary and closed-source software. Their pent-up frustration toward large software companies has generally been channeled by pumping out lines of code and creating resources for free, open-source projects that provide alternatives to the payware already on the market. These free software initiatives are generally good for two things; providing software for people that don't need all the features and polish included in most commercial software packages, and keeping the open-source zealots occupied with relatively harmless work.
Occasionally, however, the zealots manage to escape their cages and enter the real world.
More after the break.
We've all seen it before; the FSF has opened campaigns from bashing the RIAA and media providers over digital rights management to telling our governments that all public documents should be provided according to their specifications. Hell, they're even taking a shot at our happy little capitalism with their battle against software patents. Of course, most of the people that are familiar with these campaigns (or even know the slightest bit about them) are... the open-sourcers that created them to start with.
These crusades, for the most part, have been relatively benign. The FSF and other backing entities have put out their press releases, waited for a few news stories to come up about them, and moved along from there. This time, however, the Free Software Foundation is getting somewhat more pushy about things. Their newest campaign, Windows 7 Sins, includes the usual news releases and campaign website. However, this crusade goes a little bit farther than the usual passive-aggressive game plan used by the zealots on previous ventures. This time, the FSF has written up a rather pushy-sounding letter to be sent to the Fortune 500 companies, to try to guilt them into moving to open-source solutions. Read a few choice excerpts from their letter:
With the release of Windows 7 in October, Microsoft is selling the new version on a combination of fear and threats.
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 and may have a negative consequence to your ability to operate, once again abusing its monopoly position, explicitly inducing vendor lockin.
Anyone that reads this letter can clearly see that the Free Software Foundation is taking no objective tone to this campaign. Their letter reads as "Microsoft is bad, open-source is good. Why? Because we say so. So switch!" At the risk of deluging this post with inane quotes from the FSF's marketing materials, I have to share one final quote with you:Microsoft's continued attacks against the security, privacy and freedom of your organization, are no mistake. Microsoft has a history of manipulating computer manufacturers into installing its products onto the computers you purchase.
So, FSF, let me get this straight: by your logic, just because Lee has cooler facial hair, a faster car, and a bigger computer screen than me, he's automatically better than me in all aspects of life? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.Free software provides all of the freedoms Microsoft tries to deny, and is therefore better in all areas: security, accountability and monetary cost.
One of the biggest arguments the FSF is using against corporations using proprietary software is software customizability; if a piece of software isn't quite right for your company, you can have your developer pull the source code and modify the program to your organization's needs. Sounds great, right? But what happens if there's a problem customizing the software? 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. There's simply no guarantee that you'll get any help with open-source software. Most proprietary enterprise software packages solve this problem in the form of something like a support contract; 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.
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. 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.
The moral of the story? The FSF is, once again, angry at the software corporations of the world for doing their job. The idealistic ramblings of the open-source zealots will likely be heard by many, but acted upon by few. The views and intentions of the FSF are inherently good; the problem is that they go against an already-established business model shared by most of the companies and organizations on this planet. A world of free, completely open software and standards would be a good world, but it's not one that we can effectively apply to what we already have.













Comments
51
Subscribe to commentsbug frawgSep 4th 2009 10:32AM
Writing free software =/= doing coding work for free.
There are companies who hire programmers to do things like kernel development or web design and release the resulting code being under a free software license.
Lewis CollardAug 26th 2009 5:53PM
"Anyone that reads this letter can clearly see that the Free Software Foundation is taking no objective tone to this campaign."
Yeah, because like, God forbid if anyone, anywhere in the world has an opinion about something, let alone take a moral stand on anything at all. That's newsworthy shit if ever I saw it.
And this is why nobody takes bloggers seriously as journalists. Fail.
BugMeNotAug 26th 2009 6:03PM
This time, however, the Free Software Foundation is getting somewhat more pushy about things. Their newest campaign, Windows 7 Sins, includes the usual news releases and campaign website. However, this crusade goes a little bit farther than the usual passive-aggressive game plan used by the zealots on previous ventures. This time, the FSF has written up a rather pushy-sounding letter to be sent to the Fortune 500 companies, to try to guilt them into moving to open-source solutions. Read a few choice excerpts from their letter:
BugMeNotAug 26th 2009 6:04PM
Oops, quote fail.
Anyway. Less "This time" or at least not this close to each other. And less "however". Both those tips will make you look a lot more professional and much less like you are repeating yourself.
MattAug 27th 2009 3:58AM
I'm sorry, but this article's openly hostile tone makes me want to disagree by default, even though I know some of your assertions are true.
When you accuse a generally well-regarded organization of throwing a 'hissy fit' in the very title of your article, you immediately alienate a good portion of your readers. You then follow up on that from the start of the article. I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish here. If you feel the FSF is being aggressively incorrect, sinking to their level is not the answer. Not to mention others who don't quite share your views will find you childishly petty.
techpopsAug 27th 2009 6:52PM
Well said Matt. This article was was just plain bad. Opinions are something I look forward to on blogs and even in the news, as long as it doesn't go too far or become repetitive. Unfortunately this article crosses that boundary. This is not balanced reporting with some opinion, it's a hate letter from someone who clearly has a big chip on their shoulder.
What makes this mess of an article really stand out is that its set against the usually very high standards of downloadsquad, so really leaps out and feels so out of place.
Hoping this is a bad blip in the otherwise essential reading from the site, and not some portent of things to come.
BrianAug 28th 2009 1:00PM
Hi there!
All you say can be used against you.
You should read again your article and understand that you are the real Microsoft 'zealot'.
I'm just speaking my mind but I know I'm not alone.
Please read
http://for-free-on-internet.com/2009/08/some-guys-from-downloadsquad-and-softpedia-have-sold-their-soul-to-microsoft/
Good luck with the apologies you owe to your readers!
BrianAug 30th 2009 7:28AM
Maras smacked a hornets nets!
While the open source folk may not have a realistic vision of business, they are well organized. Coming here in droves, they won't just correct the article; They will attack you: The Enemy, Dog of Micro$oft, who would pick quality over software whose deployment would be anything but the bargain it has been advertised to be.
Regarding open source being more secure than closed source: That's rubbish. In theory it works as well as communism. In the real world, the theory would be crushed by tens of thousands of miscreants floating around the internet like pirates on the open sea, examining, exploiting, and destroying all foolish enough to forsake the security of closed source.
I agree with the article and sympathize for Maras, who is being berated by emotional fanatics.
BrianAug 30th 2009 7:49AM
@Brian said 1:00PM
You feel entitled like an apology because you disagree with a blog post? That's really not surprising, considering a sense of entitlement is the glue that holds the most extreme members of the chruch of open source together. You make it sound like anyone who disagrees with the FSF is rebelious scum, who could not resist the allure of riches promised by Microsoft for anyone who fights for their cause.
Releasing your code to the world is your choice. It is a positive action. Balking at anyone who doesn't walk and talk the same as you is asinine.
If you don't like the way Microsoft or Apple operate, then do it better yourself. The limiting resource for open source is the lack of talented programmers who will work for little to no compensation besides the adoration of a small online community.
DiRTAug 31st 2009 12:07PM
I think it's funny how all the blind open source defends can't see what they are doing. "The other guys is worse then we are so we can't be doing anything bad." How does that even make sense? Just because you like open source software or dislike MS doesn't mean that FSF isn't wrong from time to time in the things that they do.
Get over yourselves people. Sheesh.
whiskeySep 1st 2009 2:05AM
Yup, you are right, they [maybe] are wrong in some/many aspects. Though what was being discussed here is not if the FSF is wrong, but how this article was written in such a way that seems skewed and biased.
It's like if the FSF has hit some kind of nerve with this writer in particular, in such a way that he chose to almost insult those who are for Free Software (in general) rather than stating reasonable, truthful arguments.
Yeah, he's also entitled to an opinion, and so are we. As a blog he gets to write about whatever he feels like, but if comments are left open, then we get our saying too. See how that works?