Why Microsoft Vista is Bad & BadVista Good (But FSF Bad)
I morally support BadVista campaign in as much as it helps educate people that:
1. Windows Vista is actually a downgrade (from Windows XP or Windows 2000) wherein you are forced to support DRM (for content producers) at your expense (CPU & Memory) forcing you to upgrade your hardware just to get reasonable performance out of Windows Vista (cost analysis).
2. Microsoft Vista software is not owned by you even after you buy it. You enjoy only a restricted license to use the software. You are literally at the mercy of Microsoft.
3. Microsoft Vista operating system doesn't provide significant improvement over Windows XP to even think about upgrading.
4. Linux today presents a much more compelling case as all-round operating system over Windows Vista and even Windows XP and should be strongly considered as the first choice operating system and also for (upgrade) migration.
However I do not support FSF (or Richard Stallman) for its hardcore stance against commercial software, which I personally think preaches a thinly veiled communist agenda; but that is a topic for another day. So I think linking BadVista campaign with FSF (to support BadVista campaign you have to join FSF which I refuse to do) is a bad move. I support BadVista campaign but not FSF.
Filed under Computer Security, Enterprise Software, Fedora 7, Fedora Core 6, Headline News, Linux, Linux Migration, Microsoft, Open Source Software, Vista, Windows | 
| 
RSS 2.0 |
Trackback this Article
| 
Email this Article
You may also like to read |
September 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I also disagree with some of Richard Stallman’s absolutist position, but to call it a “thinly veiled communist agenda” is beneath idiocy. His ideas of freedom are the polar opposite of communism’s state control.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Actually they aren’t much different. Communism wants equality for all and undermines individual enterprise in favor of state.
Richard actively propagates against profit-making corporations and hopes that all software will eventually be free. Unfortunately Richard has enough of nest egg to last him a lifetime, most of us don’t.
Both of them are against individual entrepreneurship and drive. Communism wants to achieve equality by sharing the wealth by force. Richard believes only in free software which in turn forces corporations out of business and can achieve equality of poor people globally.
Both of the mindset forgets that human beings will by nature strive to be different .. to be better than others, that is what drives them forward everyday.
From where I am standing both ideas share the same fundamental flaw. Forced equality can never be a solution.
Think about it. If the above is not clear enough I can write a more detailed explanation in a separate blog post.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
What I think you are missing is that there is no controlling state running the free software movement and stifling individual initiative by imposing decisions from above. The phenomenal success of free and open source software clearly shows that there is a dynamic operating outside your conception of free market versus state. There is also a lot of money being made off of open source; it requires a different business model. I currently make a comfortable living showing businesses how to cut costs with open source DBRMSs.
Also, take into account that RMS is an ideological extreme. I think most people would agree that there is room for both open source and private business.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:45 am
> I think most people would agree that there is room for both open source and private business.
I agree with that position.
> What I think you are missing is that there is no controlling state running the free software movement and stifling individual initiative by imposing decisions from above.
A state is created when a significant mass of people starts following the directives from a single source or group. Communism wasn’t initially linked with power either. They were the opporessed ones before they became the oppressor.