On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:56:34 +0530 Nagarjuna G. wrote:
In practice I refuse to use and try to convince people to use Microsoft products. But I would refuse to set this as an agenda or campign actively for this because, when GNU and FSF started there was no Microsoft. The idea of free software is independent of Microsoft. FSF and GNU have a positive agenda and to put it in a negative terms will deviate the purpose. The reason why I cannot swallow everything that Charles wrote in Business India is because, the media is now manufacturing a new concent. As you saw the article talked about economics but not about business ethics, freedom and philosophy. They are missing the point, but it is deliberate. And not because they are ignorant about it. The war is not against Microsoft, it is against proprietary software paradigm.
Sir
Thank you for going through my mail. I hadn't read the BW article before sending my mail so it was unaffected by the article's contents. As you said that GNU and FSF started much before Microsoft existed (and shall live much after the end of Microsoft's dominace, I am confident), I agree that this can not be taken up as the _sole_ agenda.
My intent for this campaign is solely to create awareness against Proprietary Software through the misdeeds of Microsoft as a live example of the dangers of using Proprietary Software. I would like the campaign to end when it is felt that there is sufficient awareness in the general computer-using public of India. Given the lion's share that Microsoft has in the (legit/illegit) usage of Proprietary Software, it would be easy to get people to refuse Proprietary Software in general if we succeed in getting them to refuse Microsoft Products.
Sir, please allow me to try and reason out why it is probably required to take an anti-Microsoft stance:
- GNU/FSF are pro FS as much as they are against Proprietary Software, as is apparent from the speeches RMS delivers. Needless to say, Microsoft is the most ubiquitous Proprietary Software Vendor and our struggle for promotion of FS undoubtedly involves a struggle against Microsoft.
- Microsoft is not only a Proprietary Software Vendor, it is also a monopolist and currently the sole developer of "Treacherous Computing". The struggle now is not just about the freedom of creation, distribution and usage of software, it's also about the freedom to _choose_ which software to run. It is only a far-fetched possibility that a company that termed the GPL as viral would allow GPLed software to have the "Trusted" certificate.
- When we talk of promotion of Free Software by talking about the virtues of FS, we have to crack the shell of the audience's willingness to accept our philosophy. However, as I have experienced, and so must have many us promoting FS, it is not very easy to grasp the concept of Free Software in one sitting, say, in a two hour lecture. It took me time and a lot of reading to understand this concept despite the fact that I was accepting and not being skeptical. (I am glad to say that I now understand this concept to an extent where I am successfully able to counter FUD on public forums and in private meetings.)
Perhaps, it would be more productive if we first create the willingness to accept in our audience. We first make them understand how Microsoft is now trying to put their businesses in trouble. When the people ask, "Now what should we do?", we tell them that it is not just Microsoft that is capable of this treachery, but any Proprietary Software vendor. We can then tell them how Free Software creates a better environment for knowledge sharing, innovation and business enhancement.
- Lastly, we are working against a cash-laden marketing and advertising machine. It is not difficult to understand what effect an advertisement showing Narayan Murthy praising Windows XP will have on a population of aspiring computer professionals who treat him as their role model, as well as on the general public who knows him as a highly successful businessman. I firmly believe that selling GNU/Linux merchandise that is attractive and easily within reach is a potent way of publicising our motive as well as generating revenue to fund our movement.
Please understand that fighting Microsoft's Monopoly is not my sole motive. The proposed campaign is only a transitionary activity in a broader and long-standing movement.
Thank you for your patience.
Regards.