FSF urges non-profits to reject Windows 7

The FSF is not using its energies in the appropriate manner. In fact, its mis-guided and wasteful. They aren't going to encourage anyone off anything with their approach.

What they should be doing is not focus on attacking others, but to better one's own community.

The biggest deficiency with Linux is applications that people depend on.

If you can offer the same type of applications that are in parity (or better) with features and implementation at $0...Why would anyone need Windows? Why would anyone pay for Windows? Heck, why risk breaking laws pirating Windows?

Why doesn't the FSF focus its energies on that particular area?

Why not:
* create initiatives that help introduce people in the FOSS development model? (A video animation series that gives people the gist and what to expect.)

* introduce a mentoring program for those who are considering their own open source project?

* go around to businesses, organisations, etc to ask what kind of apps they depend on; so you can build a "Most Wanted" applications list to be developed?

The goal is long term results, and not be a boring mouth piece that everyone will eventually ignore.

the fsf sure are butthurt. looks like stallman is just a moron, nothing more nothing less.

He is the worst figure. He can't convince people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

Some of us are software developers with families, homes, cars, bills, etc.

Writing software takes work, some people work to provide for themselves. If software was all free, guess what, I'd be working in a different industry - in my case mechanical or electrical engineering as those were my alternatives. I'm guessing 99% of the programmers out there would be doing something else.

I agree that the FSF should focus less on attacking Microsoft, and more on the advantages of running open-source software.

One of the main advantages IS price...which is often free. To have a charity, non-profit organization, government agency, or any company trying to make a profit have to pay through the nose for proprietary software is counter-productive (despite what all the big-budged proprietary software company ads tell us).

Free or nearly-free (with support contracts) open-source software has been proven to be more secure and hugely more cost effective than closed-source, proprietary offerings. Thus it would seem to be really hard to justify buying proprietary software for governments, charities, educational institutions, or businesses wanting to balance their books and pay their employees.

The philosophical "freedom" approach -- although agreeably more in alignment with the motives of charities and non-profits -- is a bit harder to tout as a distinct advantage. Security, yes. Price, yes. The cooperative nature and open nature of open-source software is the very reason that it is developing at an exponential rate with respect to closed-source offerings. But the biggest "selling-point" in my mind is the financial and security benefits of open-source. If the FSF could concentrate more on that angle, I thing they would be better received.

Oh, and to to the comments about "how can I feed my family with open source?"... avg. Linux system administrator salary is $82K USD (of course, may not be applicable to discounts or volunteers in charities):

http://www.indeed.com/salary/Linux-Administrator.html

@aussiebear

Tell me what it is you think a non-profit or corporate business wants to do that you cannot do with a FOSS application? Accounting? GNUCash, Office? OpenOffice, Web based apps? Firefox.

You want custom software? The leading enterprise platform Java runs fine on Linux, and OpenJDK is right there.

@andrew
Don't forget, you're writing software. Think of it like book authors. Really, anyone can do your job. Look at print-media and the blogosphere. Look at how many bad books are out there. For bestselling author theres thousands of "can't pay the bills" authors.

If you're worried about money go back to mechanical or electrical engineering, or raise your game and offer SERVICES surrounding your software. Software is art, and there's a reason they're called "starving artists". We could do with a lot less "programmers" cranking out shite code for a paycheck and more people who are passionate about their art to the exclusion of monetary compensation.

"Oh, and to to the comments about "how can I feed my family with open source?"... avg. Linux system administrator salary is $82K USD (of course, may not be applicable to discounts or volunteers in charities):"

Um he said he's a programmer, not a system admin. Programmers write the stuff the systemadmins admin. Without someone to program it, there's no admin work.

Anyone who thinks programmers should always work for free is nuts too :)

It is a good idea for the fsf to target their limited resources towards people and groups that are influential. These ngo's are certainly influential in the circles that count for the future. So congratulations to the person who had the idea.

Using your analogy, doctors can be considered as artists as well. In fact ANY profession can be considered an art. So should we all be "starving artists?"

Can you imagine someone coming into your industry and starting to offer your services for FREE? You would be out of a job in no-time. Why would anyone buy your product when they can get a comparable product for free?

There is nothing truly "Free" in this world and this includes software.

"Software is art, and there's a reason they're called "starving artists". We could do with a lot less "programmers" cranking out shite code for a paycheck and more people who are passionate about their art to the exclusion of monetary compensation."

Provide a list of any prominent FOSS programmers (as in core Linux kernel devs, core GNOME/KDE devs, etc not some random basement dweller who posted a single patch to a programmer) who aren't on a corporate payroll. I'm willing to it's either going to be empty or very, very short.

that even when your OS is free as in price that you still can't even get more than 1% market share. It must also make you guys mad, as can be seen by the increasingly shrill rhetoric of the F$F, that you guys are also pissed that even though it isn't even released for retail that Windows 7 has 80% more market share than Loonix has been able to get in 17 years. Even the Vista, which is considered to be universally despised, has over 18 times the market share of Loonix.

What kind of logic is it that says programs ought to be free? Why are programmers being singled out this way? Why is the ability to fiddle with other people's code considered a "fundamental freedom"? Why is the ability to fiddle with other people's poetry (for one example) not considered a "fundamental freedom"?

Why is starving the programmers considered to be 'beneficial' to society? Why is it up to Richard Stallman to decide who should starve, and who shouldn't? How did the idiot manage to stay out of a mental insitution for so long?

The funny thing about the statement that programmers should work for free is that the people saying it would never take a job and accept the terms that they wouldn't get paid.

When you can't give something away, then perhaps it time to look at the product and where it's failing to meet the needs of the market, instead of trying change the market by berating and insulting the potential buyer.

The operating system you can't even *give* away.

The three stages of obtaining freedom:

1) First you laugh at us.
2) Then you fight against us.
3) Finally you join us.

I guess most of these guys who commented are still stuck in the first one. Personal attacks and lame statements like "freetard"; "you guys are pissed"; "you can't even give it away free"; all are part of stage 1.

You are on the right path.

We are waiting to welcome you into living free!!!

This f orgnization clearly ignored, on purpose or not, that Microsoft has a program aiming at providing non-profit orgnizations with software priced NEARLY FREE. Every big title from Microsoft is priced below $10, and if you purchase Open licenses, the total cost will be even less.

No one in this world will develop Real Free software for you unless he can profit in one another way. I'd really like to know what price I have to pay.

By the way, I am already sick at seeing endless promotion of those free linux stuff. Com'n, if you are that good, just be it. You don't need to shout out loud everywhere to force people to regard paying for software as silly decision.

I think the big problem is, before people fall in love with free software, they already hated them...

To the vast majority of PC users, “Windows” means “XP”. That’s what best runs the software they’ve been using for the better part of a decade. Vista was a step backwards on compatibility, that’s why it got such an apathetic reception. Seven doesn’t really solve the compatibility problem either, hence Microsoft’s last-minute shoving in of the problematic “XP mode”.

Which is an admission of defeat. After all, why should users pay even more cash to run exactly the same software they’re already running?

"3) Finally you join us."

Nope, I prefer to get paid for my job. I don't live off welfare or someone else's donations to pay my bills like RM$ and the rest of your freetard loons.

All of us should create and all of should consume :)

Yet again ... the discussion has degraded into a "slag each other off" session.

My company has been moving non-profit organisations over to Linux for years. They save more than just the licensing costs, their desktop support costs also plummet simple because they don't need it.

Web based email and calendaring with open office for everything else.

Tech support simply stops happening.

Makes you proud to be involved.