Having found out about free software and having studied it for months, I inevitably started participating in discussions which touch upon free software or even initiated such discussions myself. The experience is very interesting, but I do not want to share it just yet.

I first wanted to ask you guys, people who in majority probably came to gNewSense to practice a principle, to use 100% free software - what is your experience in promoting free software among your friends, colleagues, on the Internet? Do you succeed to interest people and/or show them that free software is a solid concept and an ethical way to do software? What problems and common arguments against have you faced?

common arguments "everybody else uses Windows, or gets it for free by downloading it or from copying cd's and dvd's").

I managed to argument back that downloading and using software that is non-free makes you dependent on that software, and then it can be harder later on to move to free software, because you've gotten comfortable with the conveniences of the non-free software.

The problem with explaining free software to people is where to start. There are so many facets to the movement, it's easy to get lost and seem absurd to your listener.

One thing I've found that people don't respond to very much is when free software is explained as peoples' "right to share what they learn." Obviously, this statement comes out of a software developers' perspective, and most people don't see how anyone could claim a moral right to something so seemingly esoteric.

What I like to do is tell a story. I say "back when computers were only used by scientists, it was a common assumption that software code would be freely shared so that others could study and improve upon your work, as in any other field of knowledge. Soon, however, profit-seeking companies realized they could gain a competitive advantage if they kept their software code secret. In 1973, a researcher at MIT's Artificial Intelligence lab saw how antithetical this was to the spirit of both scientific progress and the idea that people had a right to understand and modify the tools they used and depended upon. So he quit his job at MIT and began working on a "free" computer operating system - free as in freedom - that would not only serve as a functional tool to anyone who wanted to use it, but also be a resource for people to learn and adapt the technology independent without the need to gain permission from private institutions."

In my experience, telling this story about free software gets a very positive response, probably because it captures the idea that free software is not about software primarily; it is about education, and about what is best for science, the economy, society, and maybe even human rights. It also shows how companies have violated their social responsibilities by using the unfair tactic of closing their software, and leaving people dependent on tools which they can only use but not ever fully understand or modify. The story turns the status quo on its head, showing that openness was once the assumption, and then some clever entrepreneurs convinced the general public they should buy something which should be free. People on both the right and the left seem to agree with the ideas expressed by the story, especially if they don't have any personal economic interest in closed software.

Plus, it gets people asking questions like "So did this Stallman guy succeed?" and "Is Mac free software?"

I really like that free software story!

I find it easy to talk to people about the frustrations of using a computer. When I use another person's computer which is running non-free software I sometimes get extremely frustrated and say something like, "Grarr! Using a computer doesn't have to BE like this!", without even thinking about it. I then usually continue by mentioning things that EVERY computer user, not just programmers, understands, such as:

What is the computer DOING right now?

Why doesn't the computer do what I TELL it to do?

Why are there so many advertisements all over the place?

And the list goes on and on. Sometimes people get interested and try GNU/Linux. Sometimes people decide they really like it and choose not to go back to what they were using before. It seems, though, that I've "converted" many more people to open source software rather than free software, but that just might be because I only started using gNewSense in 2008. :-P

Although it is fun to share with people my ideas about free software, limited hardware support sure can make it difficult to help people try it out. :-(

Forest: the story is fantastic. I think I will now do the same thing, it is a really good way to explain and it is a very moving story too!

I will tell you about problems which I encounter during conversations and discussions about free software.

First of all, I would like to say that most Internet discussions resulted in people saying that free software is total crap and they agree with all the arguments mentioned in the discussion against free software. Most personal conversations, however, usually result in people getting interested and positive about the ideas of free software, even if they do not agree in the beginning. But such conversations might take up to several hours of arguing and discussion.

First of all, non-programmers do not understand what freedoms they are loosing exactly. In fact, this is the most common problem. People simply do not see it that way, they say - I do not want to change the code of the software and my friends never ask me for software, they can buy what they need or get it from torrents and whatnot. I always help my friends and I do not believe that proprietary software restricts me or the society in any way. In fact, with Windows Vista I can now do even more.

When you speak about general concepts of ethics and the damage that end user licenses do to the community, most people do not respond. This is a philosophical issue and not many people want to analyze the situation and it is easier to dismiss it.

With programmers it is easier - they know what it's all about and it is easy to explain the dilemma, so they either agree or not. Those who do not agree have one argument that to this day I have never overcome - free software is good and all, but I want to do programming and feed my family. With free software it is hardly possible, because nobody will pay for software that can be obtained without charge from a friend. So the idea of free software is nice, but utopian. Programmers need proprietary software to make a living. While the argument is philosophically weak, I cannot find simple understandable arguments that would convince that the economical situation is not that big an issue. (for instance, if you speak about software support, people say that their software doesn't need much support, etc.)

And also both non-programmers and programmers complain about the complexity and non-friendly user interfaces of many free software packages (on this one I must agree though).

Anyway, these are the common problems I face.

The argument that nobody is willing to hire you to write free software is usually a bad one. Most companies develop a custom program for another company, when the program is done, they paying company gets the source code, and thus it's free software. This has been stated by rms several times.

"Please note that the majority of software, nearly all software, is neither free nor proprietary, it is custom software developed for one particular user. If that one particular user has all these freedoms, say, if that user has the full rights to the software, then you might say in a trivial sense that it's Free Software. There's only one user and that user is free. No user has been subjugated; no one is being mistreated in this way. Of course there are always other ethical issues that might enter the situation. There are many ethical issues in life, but in this one particular ethical issue, at least in that case, nothing wrong is being done. "

nks: yeah, you are correct. but once I say that almost all software is custom then they say - then what is the problem? relax!

I'd have to say the four hardest parts for me where as fallows.

One: Ignorance. Two: Greed. Three: Fallacious Emotional Attachment. Four: Impatience. Five: Hardware Incompatibility.

One:

Off the bat, I was ignorant to Free Software. Even when I learned the values and history, it took me a while to learn about its many successes. There is a lot to learn about Free Software; but it is worth it to learn it.

Two:

Greed. I had done some game development before Free Software and I had liked the power trip of knowing people had to do things the way I set it up. As well as the idea that someday I could make money doing this. I have become wiser and realized that power should never be placed over other people. Also, people can make money off of Free Software.

Three:

This one might sound odd to some, but I had a lot of emotional resistance against Free Software because I used to be a Nintendo fan. I had become attached to their characters and attached myself to the Nintendo philosophy as I got older. It took me a while to find Free Software games and characters to attach to, as I attached myself to the Free Software Movement. Icons, images, are powerful things. They are more than just pictures, they represent ideas. I had to replace symbols of Non-Free Software with symbols of Free Software. Maybe I'm the first person who faced this. Anyway, I am proof this can be faced and solved happily.

Four:

Impatience came in two forms. One was in lack of apparent features. What few real features Free Software appears to lack are being actively developed as high priority projects. Programs are releasing new versions that are getting more features all the time. Also, creative ingenuity can create apparently missing features with features already available. Another form of impatience was in when an error occurred I was impatient because I had never encountered such an error before and expected everything to just work. Both with the Sound and 3D issue, Free Software has proven to me that it can fix errors quickly. Also, Free Software does allow those who know how to program to help in fixing errors whereas Non-Free Software doesn't.

Five:

Hardware incompatibility annoyed me. But then I realized that it is not Free Software that it being incompatible with the hardware; it is the hardware manufactures being uncooperative with Free Software. We must not blame Free Software; it is the hardware manufactures who are not cooperating that are to blame. Also, as researching proves, many hardware manufactures are cooperating. So, the issue of incompatibility the that uncooperative hardware manufactures created is being solved with cooperative hardware manufactures. Many systems and devices already run completely off of Free Software; and more cooperating hardware manufactures and devices are being announced. Such as the ath5k and ath9k drivers being freed allowed for more wireless devices to work with completely Free Software and that it is possible to do 3D gaming with completely Free Software. Also, there is a list on the FSF site that shows hardware compatibility.

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

Once people do a lot of learning about Free Software, they will realize it is best and switch to it for ethical reasons; to value Freedom for themselves and others. I have. They may also go back and forth before coming to their final decision in favor of Free Software. There is a lot to learn. Free Software is also railing up against the fallacious values we've been taught for a very long time by media and other places. It's hard to break lies with truth, but truth does eventually win. It did for me.

Five hardest parts, not four. I sorry for the mistake.

Sorry for the improper English of forgetting the word am.

there's no way to make people able to use a Pc,image using FreeSoftware instead of pre-installed winSvista on their (unuseful) laptop! I experience every day people who only cares to use Facebook,a bit of MSN,some Dvd,and nothing more.they believe Vista is a part of Pc,Mac is for genius Einstein-like,and we came from monkey. people often can't realize a pc is more than this,they think it's incredible play with Gta4 on a pc instead of a Ps3,and then thinking a Ps3 is "more powerful than a pc". then you tell to them "you can modify video,audio,you can use security camera,read neawspaper,use eMeSeNe,and so more,in the same moment,with a Pc,with a libre Pc" they fall from the moon,i think. they don't interest.they think "linux is for hacker,I only want to web and Msn and watch video" you reply "you can do all of this and more,more efficently and quicker" and they don't believe,cause they think "vista is cooler,and Mac even more,but it costs" So,at the end of the story,people is not interested to KNOW to use a Pc,figured out to know HOW to use it. Free software is for us who Knows,for us who WHANT to know HOW to use a pc,because an hackaer is a curious persone who loves to know how something works. we have to use it,because it is for us that know,and for those who doesn't even know we exist. free soft is our lifestyle,so we need it,witout if or but.closed soft = money ,is only an excuse.it generates people who doesn't cares.we can choose,I choosed.And I am happy and satisfied so.couse it's my way to be.even people doesn't cares or understand. P.S: sorry for the long post and the bad english :-(

I had a new thought.

People should be able to use the computer they buy however they want. This is where software that respects a person's freedom is important.

I should be able to decide what I do with my computer. That is a right which I have. A person, a company, or a government should not be allowed to tell me what I can and can not do with my computer. Now, of course, there are consequences to what I chose to do, and if I do something illegal then I may go to jail. (I personally choose not to do things that are illegal) ;-) But it is for me to decide what I will and will not do.

Of course, I also believe that people have the freedom to buy and use non-free software. But in doing so they give up some of their freedom.

Well that's also a "silly" argument that people make when tryng to confuse freedom, to that i respond: "You have the freedom to choose as a consumer, but after that, the software you bought will not respect your freedom, and that's what im talking about, computer users freedom". I also argue a lot about Free Software, my problem is that i easily fall in technical arguments, and well, the average "Facebook" and "MSN" user don't care about this things, so at the end they always say "yea, but unlike you... im not a techy, i just like to see my Facebook and save my pictures from my camera". So im not trying to fall on that argument again. Forest's story is a very good one, thanks for sharing it!

Well that's also a "silly" argument that people make when tryng to confuse freedom, to that i respond: "You have the freedom to choose as a consumer, but after that, the software you bought will not respect your freedom, and that's what im talking about, computer users freedom". I also argue a lot about Free Software, my problem is that i easily fall in technical arguments, and well, the average "Facebook" and "MSN" user don't care about this things, so at the end they always say "yea, but unlike you... im not a techy, i just like to see my Facebook and save my pictures from my camera". So im not trying to fall on that argument again. Forest's story is a very good one, thanks for sharing it!

I'm a ardent free software activist. I studied Computer Engineering for one year (I dropped and now I'm at Mathematics). In the mailing list of the former I often get in flame-wars (despite the fact that I'm always polite) with some pragmatists and "windows-defenders". I think it's my responsibility to prevent that them turn themselves into proprietary software developers. Most of them think I'm ridiculous, but two of them agree with me.

The greatest sacrifice I made was to stop seeing videos in Youtube. Recently I found a way to see videos without any proprietary software. But it's not a big sacrifice. It's easy to use fully free operational system nowadays. Requires just a tiny effort.

I'd like to thank you guys of the gNewSense development crew, rms for starting the project, and all free software developers. I wish to be one someday too (although I study Mathematics, and wish to undergraduate in Physics too).

People have forgotten what PC stands for. Personal Computer. What does that mean? When a computer is personal that means it belongs to you. It is your property. So if a computer is your property, shouldn't you be able to use it as you see fit? Shouldn't you be able to take it a part and see how it works. Shouldn't you be able to study it and modify it to better suit your needs?

Well people I'm here to tell you that the only way to have a personal computer is to build one yourself. Computers are no longer personal. They have been incorporated therefore they are NPCs (Non-Personal Computers). They are owned by corporations who care nothing for our well being. They only care about maximizing their bottom line. When you buy an NPC, especially a laptop, you could actually viod your warranty if you open it up and try and study it.

I do not believe that free software is for everybody. Everybody does not want to be free. Most people enjoy allowing other people to control their lives (make decisions for them, tell them how to think, what to think, how to live, how to walk, how to talk, where they can and can not go, what they can and can not do with a computer they have purchased, even what they can do on the interenet).

It's amazing how the more things change, the more things stay the same. Back in the 70's people were complaining about all the diffirent operating systems and how they were incompatible with diffirent software. Then UNIX came about and solved the software issue. Then in the 80's people were complainging about the incompatibility of hardware with diffirent flavors of UNIX and a standards committee was formed to insure hardware compatibility would be upheld.

Then came the 90's and we found ourselves right back where we had started just 20 years earlier. Microsoft became the most powerful software company in the world and windows the most used operating system in use (mainly because people were sharing this os with their friends and family). Microsoft owes it's success to the people who traded their freedom for their software and os and to the manufacturers who willing sold their souls just to sell their hardware. Now Microsoft tells hardware manufacturers how to produce their hardware or it wouldn't work with their os or software.

Is it just me or has the requirement to run software become appauling. How the hell can an os need 7 GB of harddisk space and then after all the updates occupy nearly 15 GB of harddisk space (Windows Vista Home Edition)? How have we come to accept such waste?

We must reclaim our computers and make them personal again. We must reclaim our freedom and our lives. My name is Frederick Lamont Evans and I have a PC. How many other people can say the same?