Re: [Fsuk-manchester] freedoms analogy

[MJ Ray]

Pete Morris wrote:
> [...] But the question is often asked, "Why don't more people
> use/support/promote/want free software?", and the answer to that
> question is going to be negative reasons, not positive
> solutions. [...]

Only if you're mindblowingly literal.  That reminds me of
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2011-01-17/ "It's never a good idea
to ask an engineer a question in the "Why don't we" format."

> 1) Include a copy of Internet Explorer licensed from Microsoft with
> some distributions (this is hugely important for many
> people). Charge if necessary.
> 2) Work with Microsoft to make a [premium paid for] version of
> Office available on Ubuntu (this is a total show-stopper for many
> people; my partner used to use Ubuntu, until his university
> coursework required Microsoft Office documents, and OpenOffice
> couldn't handle pixel-perfect table layouts and fonts accurately)

I don't think Microsoft would ever support these.  They lose both
revenue and control.  I seem to remember it was quite a tricky task
to get Corel to allow a GNU/Linux version until they were almost
irrelevant.

I'm also somewhat sceptical that those two measures would increase
use: I think they may even reduce use with some webmasters taking the
chance to restart the browser wars, and others reverting to only
producing MS Office files, arguing that everyone can buy a copy.

Which university was requiring their students to buy Microsoft?

> 3) Make all the restricted and proprietary components and features
> turn on by default

To do better than the current situation would need hardware makers
to put the effort in (because the basic problem is the secrecy of
some); and various bits of law like big chunks of patent law to die.

> 4) Sell copies of Ubuntu in nice shrink-wrapped boxes in PC World

I think it was SuSE that used to be in there.  If it made much
difference, why wasn't SuSE more popular if not dominant?

> 5) Create distributions where the "tinker" element can be turned
> off, i.e. locked-down versions of the distribution, pre-configured
> to corporate requirements and policies

They already exist, although I wouldn't like to recommend one.

> Those are just five off the top of my head, and I doubt they will be
> popular. But their popularity with the free software movement is the
> entire problem: it's not that there aren't solutions to the problem,
> it's that the solutions presented aren't deemed acceptable.
> 
> As always, it comes down to philosophical ideology rather than
> technical implementation.

I think it's more that those suggested solutions are actually
incompatible with the mission statements of most free software groups.

If one offers solutions to a slight misunderstanding of the problem,
it's not surprising they're rejected.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire for various work http://www.software.coop/products/