The Party of Gno
|
|
Comments (4)
Perhaps the FSF is not very high on user's radar these days. You and Joe are right, it's not enough to just say no no no, you have to offer some good alternatives. That's my main beef with the FSF. I like their strong stance on software freedom and unwillingness to water down the core principle of software freedom. But being "the party of Gno" isn't very effective.
Quoting:it's not enough to just say no no no, you have to offer some good alternatives.When the idea is broken by design (elevated privileges in ActiveX, anyone?), "no" is the only good alternative.
That pretty much sums up the ActiveFSF too, broken by design.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

Nonetheless, Joe is right in this article, and to see some of the replies by some FSF supporters to the article -- the usual rigid, dogmatic, "with-us-or-against-us" kind -- reinforces the trend toward marginalization that hamstrings this vital and necessary organization (of which I am a member, incidentally -- No. 5030 to be exact).
To think that pointing out shortcomings (as Joe does) and offering alternatives are "opposition" is painfully myopic. I would like to think that the leadership of the organization would be a little more receptive to these observations, but sadly I'm not terribly confident.