Windows FOSS on the Live CD -- the OOo2 question

[Sandis Neilands]

Hello!

On 2/23/06, Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-23-02 at 07:36 +1100, Peter Garrett wrote:
> > > They don't care about free software philosophy.  They care about their
> > > work which happens to use software in the process.  If the software is
> > > free or not doesn't even enter their consciousness.
>
> > Michael, I find this assertion, shall we say politely, *interesting*.
> > Some years ago, I was a completely "non-technical" computer user.
>
> > I got tired of being treated like a suspected thief, having to prove my
> > honesty with codes after legitimately buying products, and give information
> > to a company whose principles, behaviour and methods were anathema to me.
>
> And how many computer users do you match?  How many end-users worry
> about all this stuff vs. how many just put up with the shit that's
> constantly foisted upon them?

That is entirely true. But think of this in another way. People having
 techincal issues with proprietary software will only look at FOSS if
they are aware of it. People having issues with evil and unfair
buisness methods and corporate philosophy (greed) will look at FOSS
only if they are aware of it.

In the first case, ubuntu's win-foss and the open cd are doing
reasonably well, as they are providing techically superior
alternatives. In second case they fail to deliver the message, that
this software is free of charge because of it's development methods,
libre licensing and so on, but not because some software house is
performing dumping. If not for the sake of freedom, this information
is valuable as economical hint.

You say that users don't know it and they don't care. I say that they
don't care because they don't know. Giving them the information about
philosophies of FOSS won't hurt, will it? They would still have a
choice not to read it.

--
Sandis