Will users stay with "That Open Source thing" if they don't get the freedom point?

[Eric Feliksik]

In a previous mail I stated that we should realize that if we get users
to use Free Software (Firefox, etc) because of pragmatic reasons ("it's
so cool and better", "it's gratis"), but don't make them realize *how*
the model of freedom makes it so, they are not likely to stay. We don't
have to keep bothering them with freedom ideology, but please *do*
mention it. The interested will ask and make up their mind.

(For the interested: )
David Marsh wrote:
> (...)
> However, the flipside to that coin is that users are reluctant to
> change. Having learned of the security (and other) issues with some
> proprietary software, and having made that first decision to replace *one*
> app with another (possibly leading to other 'switches'), they'll then be
> reluctant to change again. The users who are changing are those who have
> become aware of M$ security flaws, are concerned about their data, their
> privacy, their security, and they change in order to overcome those problems.

I think you overestimate the amount of thought and interest users put in
the type of software they use and in the vendor that delivers them, if
it's about practical merits. They don't care. You could argue that they
will care for some weird ideologic talk about freedom, then; But I
managed to get some intelligent people to listen to me and put thought
into the ideology although they are not interested in computers at all. 
And they still don't use free software, but they get the point a little 
bit better. As the recent discussions on this list (about the Forbes 
article featuring Theo de Raadt) shows, there is a lot of 
misunderstanding/bad journalism too. Some thoughtful people can
be very delighted by hearing the rationale of "those volunteers writing
software for fun", if /we/ would tell them.


> (...) and they'll wonder how M$, with its, in comparison, more
> limited resources, can possibly ever compete on a level playing field 
> ever again: bugfixes for Mozilla projects come out in days, bugfixes for 
> M$ apps often take many months, if at all.
I can repeat myself: average users don't care that much. (And I think
Microsoft *can* deliver software at a standard that can... pass.) In
absolute numbers, many people speak about Windows' lack of security,
speed of bugfixes, etcetera. It looks like a lot of people because of
the kind of news /we/ read. But even of those people, *very* few of them
actually take any action. The rest of the world doesn't mention it at all.

> Yes, M$ will in time produce an improved version of their browser, but
> the switchees know its history, why should they risk being "fooled
> again" when by then they'll be happy with their FLOSS alternative?
Sure! Because windows is 'gratis' for them (because it's on the
laptop/pc by default), and they'll first try the browser that delivered
with Longhorn. Besides that, "both my banking site and MSN SuperWeb
didn't work well with that FireSomething thing, so what's wrong with
using the normal browser. It's just a computer." --> intelligent people
could be informed about the four fundamental freedoms [1] and why they
matter, even for non-techies.

[1] http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/philosophy/document_view

> Once somebody has seen over the top of the mountain, it's far easier to
> keep walking down the other side than to turn back and start climbing
> upwards again. It's enabling people to dare to look over the top of the 
> mountain that's the hardest step of all.

No, users don't have to 'climb back' to Microsoft's side of the
mountain, because they'll start there with the next computer they get.
That one will work very decently as well, so users will have to take the
action to climb to the other side *again*.

Really, Free Software is very cool, but realise that lot's of people
don't care much about it.

I may sound very pessimstic. I'm not, actually; I just say that many
intelligent people might have a much better understanding about what our
fanatism of that "gratis software" is about if they know that it's not
just because "it's so stable", but if they realise there is a rationale,
an ideology.
> Don't get me wrong. Every strand of the threads that have contributed
> towards the Ubuntu tapestry should be duly mentioned and credited in the
> "About Ubuntu" webpages. I would definitely agree with you there. But
> remember that the users don't generally read any more documentation than
> they feel they need to, either ;-)

True, very few people read that. That's why it might be told them
*together* with telling them about the practical merits. They don't need
to become members of the Church of Emacs, they just have to be told once
or twice that there is *more* than pragmatism that drives Open Source.
Those who care at all might ask for more info, but lots of them have no
clue because no-one mentions it.

> So the liberty-freedom ends up being as important an aspect simply 
> because of the fact that *it exists*, without which, the rest wouldn't..
> But it's not the "selling point" (to most people) in itself.
Well, whatever path of evangelism you take, we have pretty much the same
goal, so lets be happy Ubuntu users together :)

Eric