08.27.09
Gemini version available ♊︎FSF Campaign Upsets Exactly Those Whom It Ought to Have Upset
Summary: “Windows 7 Sins” campaign is well received by most who have already embraced the message, disliked by staunch supporters of Microsoft and/or greed
BASED on the widespread exposure that the “Windows 7 Sins” campaign has received, we consider it to be a great success, better than “Bad Vista” even. It addresses more than just the operating system while earning the chance to pass on an important message to a lot of individuals outside the choir, so to speak.
The preparations for this campaign paid off and SJVN — despite thinking that the message was a little too negative — welcomed the effort.
The FSF (Free Software Foundation) has never liked proprietary software, but for most of its history, it’s focused on singing the praises of free software, and, with some distaste, its near-twin, open-source software. Not anymore. These days, the FSF is spending its time attacking proprietary software, like it did today, August 26th, when it went after Windows 7 in its new Windows 7 Sins: The case against Microsoft and proprietary software.
In our IRC channel, some people expressed satisfaction with the campaign, whereas others thought more humour would have helped soften the message. There are many comments in The Register on an article posted by Microsoft proponent Gavin Clarke. He has spent a lot of time this week promoting Vista 7 by mention, so maybe it’s a balancing act.
“The de facto Microsoft PR people who disguise themselves as journalists did not want to appear as though they were attacking the FSF, but they took other subtle approaches to making a veiled attack.”An attack on the FSF came from Business Week, to whom the FSF seems ‘scary’ for obvious reasons. There are also the “perception management” folks [1, 2] in Slashdot — whose who, as usual, took the time to mock Richard Stallman through spin and cherry-picking (typical techniques for disrepute). The de facto Microsoft PR people who disguise themselves as journalists did not want to appear as though they were attacking the FSF, but they took other subtle approaches to making a veiled attack.
It was also unsurprising to see Mac enthusiasts mocking the FSF, which has never been kind towards Apple, either. Some of this is being addressed at The Source:
Now, as I said it is no surprise that the FSF is engaging in this important effort, but what was a bit surprising was some of the reactions to it.
For example, consider Mr. Matt Asay’s column, where he ignores the entire message of the site and chooses instead to try to paint the FSF as hypocritices for using a CC-No Derivatives license, and then has the laughable audacity to call for more code from the FSF – as if the FSF doesn’t already have a project or two out there – code which he hints is not derivable, a truly foolish red herring to wave about.
Mr. Asay has written many critical pieces about the FSF, the GPL, and related matters recently – it’s a shame that he continues to pretend to be a proponent of Open Source, when it is quite clear he is actually some sort of pro-commerical open-core “fauxpen source” evangelist.
This is the same sort of dishonest dismissal we see from non-Open Source supporters like Business Week, right down to using the same language (both articles deem the effort “silly”). In fact, Mr. Asay endorses the juvenille ranting of the Download Squad’s article in his own writing – a truly vacuous rock to build upon, I should think.
We hereby repeat the claim that the campaign has been successful. It upset only those whom the FSF ought to have expected to upset. The message did not fall on deaf ears. Vista 7 is failing. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Needs Sunlight said,
August 28, 2009 at 6:44 am
Well, it’s bizarre that the M$ shill on ComputerWorld still tries to equate M$ with all proprietary software. There’s plenty of non-M$ proprietary software out there still, albeit not so much as before M$ predatory activities. However, it’s out there and much of it, aside from being closed source, is not complete crap.
One of the risks of trying to equate M$ with all proprietary software is that it disparages the quality of fairly decent software.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
August 28th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Yes, Preston Gralla is always reciting Microsoft talking points.
Watch the Microsoft (Redmond) press:
http://rcpmag.com/blogs/doug-barney/2009/08/sins-of-windows-7.aspx
“Overall, the FSF is arguing about the ills of capitalism, which is a big topic.”
Yeah, Microsoft is just capitalism… where capitalism means bribery., racketeering and other violations of the law are the norm, I guess..
Yuhong Bao Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 12:43 am
For example, Oracle often disparages MS (they even exposed front groups via good old dumpster diving), but it’s own software are proprietary software, not open source.
twitter Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
All non free software, regardless of quality, is immoral. The point of non free software is to keep secrets from the users so that obedience of one kind or another is extracted. All non free software is just an owner away from being utter crap and all of it is more or less abusive. There may be better and worse software owners but free software will always be better.