Comments

• powered_by_tux

  2009-12-15 22:24:18

  Associating religion and freedom is a clever maneuver of freedom opposers given the modern trend of anti-religiousness which is especially present on the internet, isn't it? Oh wait, what was the name of that big company waging a 'jihad' against Linux again?

• NotZed

  2009-12-16 00:31:42

  "Associating religion and freedom is a clever maneuver of freedom opposers given the modern trend of anti-religiousness which is especially present on the internet"
  
  Failed attempt at sarcasm aside, I don't know if there's anything clever about it, it's been used (often playfully) since the dawn of the internet to describe opponents who do not share a frame of reference over an argument (and since not all frame of references are equal, it is often justified). Thus they see their opponents as `irrational', like all religion must be.
  
  If anything it's use is pretty un-clever, and simply used as a catch-all since there is no substance to the argument - like the global warming `sceptics' who call the science `religion' in a childish mis-understanding of language and how science works. And they haven't come up with this idea on their own, it's a deliberate tactic utilised by energy interests to undermine the politics of dealing with the science.
  
  Calling the support of freedoms for individuals a 'religion' seems pretty hard to argue for in any rational and reasonable debate. Having strong convictions likewise does not a religion make of itself either. Without any real argument with which to counter the point, lets just call them a religion and make them look silly eh?
  
  Also remember, 'jihad' came directly from internal Microsoft emails.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-12-16 00:42:29

  Yes, I have seen at least 2-3 separate E-mails where Bill Gates talks about "Jihad" against the competition, There are surely more instances.
  
  Remember that Mono proponents call Boycott Novell "software Taliban".
  
  Religion is sometimes not strong enough a slur, so they mix it with some racial aspects and "terrorism".

• Robotron 2084

  2009-12-16 01:49:58

  Roy does some nice spin here, but I have to admit it's amusing to see him bothered by this.
  
  The "religious" behavior comes not from the GNU project itself, but from some of it's user, like Roy and those who chat in the IRC channel. They have a firm belief that using proprietary software is wrong/evil/immoral. Not only that, but they insist that everyone else yield to their same beliefs. Similar to Christianity, followers go about telling others they are in danger, or in this case their freedom is in danger. Fear is used to motivate someone to support an idea. Do you value your freedom? Do you want to burn forever in eternal damnation? Of course you don't, then follow us.
  
  I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but I know I won't burn forever in a lake of fire, even though Christians have warned me. I don't believe their fear.
  
  I enjoy purchasing and using proprietary software, but I know my freedom is not in any danger, even though FOSS zealots have warned me. I don't believe their fear.
  
  If you can reject fear, you can see things for how they really are. There is no freedom in fear.

• your_friend

  2009-12-16 06:20:02

  This is one of the historic shifts of focus non free software owners must apply to deflect their guilt.
  
  

  They have a firm belief that using proprietary software is wrong/evil/immoral.

  
  
  It is not immoral or evil to use non free software, any more than it is immoral to be robbed, raped or enslaved. The crime is the attack against freedom which non free software owners must make for their business model to survive.

• Robotron 2084

  2009-12-17 10:49:51

  There is no guilt because from the perspective of both the software creator and user, no wrong was done. For the same reason that I find nothing wrong with eating pork, though some followers of certain religions forbid this. You feel it's wrong because of the beliefs you hold, others do not.
  
  It's preposterous to state that it's not immoral to be robbed, raped, or enslaved. What is the purpose of this backwards logic? Obviously the labels "evil" and "immoral" ONLY apply to the perpetrator, not the victim.
  
  Once again, there is no crime here because normal people do not believe a crime was committed, or believe any wrong was done. People with a different set of religious, political, or philosophical beliefs may feel differently.

• your_friend

  2009-12-19 06:20:14

  You pretend to be deceived into a state of happy slavery. "Normal people" generally hate their "normal" non free computers, usually without understanding why the experience sucks and a pathetic few think there could be nothing better in the world. Their deception is just another part of the non free software crime. If you mean what you say, you remind me of the abducted child who thought it was "normal" to live in a shed and bear children without medical assistance or pain killers. The ignorant victim was not in a position to judge her abusers. I doubt you are as ignorant as you say you are.

• Needs Sunlight

  2009-12-18 15:28:50

  Bill Gates, Miguel de Icaza and the other software taliban are not *new* to FOSS simply because the are *not part of* FOSS. Some of the individuals may have recently started interfering in projects, but just because they come in and try to sabotage FOSS projects does not mean they are part of the project.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-12-18 16:57:58

  It's problematic when "contribution" becomes money and not code. It means that corporations can become owners of software they exploit rather than develop. You see this in GNOME, for example.