In the free world, there is no clear distinction between a developer, a user (or a customer, etc.), and that's the whole point.
Then we are talking about different points. Because there are clearly distinct non-developers: those 90% of the population who are as /committed/ to never write a line of code, as much you are to free software. These were the people at least I was talking about.
Everyone can become a developer or assume that role temporarily
I feel it's 100 times easier to convince people of software freedom.
This comes with certain dose of inconvenience, such as explaining a friend why you can't use the link she sent you, or telling your boss that there is no way to do what he orders.
Unemployment may be an inconvenience few are willing to suffer; I find it hard to blame them for that. (Although I oppose the little-sacrifice-for-you-theory.)
Also, some will consider an advocate more credible if he can get his job done than if he's on the dole.
But the question is: Given that full freedom is therefore ruled out for them (for the time being), is the freedom for the N-1 other tasks totally irrelevant?
I understand your position, irrelevant if they just use, only relevant if they value the freedom.
The crucial point of disagreement is: Is it easier to convince people already using SOME free software of its ethical value compared to convincing those who use NONE?
I've never managed to convince people of anything remotely as abstract as software freedom (and it is for those I was talking about) without them experiencing it. I know nobody who was utterly convinced of software freedom when he heard about it and went straight to gNS at once. Everybody I know who ethically values it has grown up with proprietary software and gradually learned to appreciate both the practical and the ethical benefits of .
I agree it's a mistake to only argue "it's better". But if you have the same experience with the people you know who now value it (how about yourself?), why not adjust the way you argue? (from binary to gradual)
If, on the other hand, you have more success first convincing the people theoretically, before showing them what it's all about, please share your arguments, I definitely need them.
doesn't achieve that, especially if you teach them to accept non-free software as legitimate compromise
Nobody argues to present it as "okay"; all suggestions at least included an explanation + asking for constant voicing of demand for a free version.
He just waived a hand when I pointed him to John Sullivan's article series at fsf.org. He didn't even read a single line.
You will never convince ALL people. Neither is it necessary. Slavery is abolished, although you'll likely find individuals who'd not mind owning slaves.
Exactly. It can never be used for that, as suggesting anything non-free is self-defeating
And suggesting to stay with their 100% proprietary systems is not? Because this is what you are effectively doing when you say that all short of 100% free is equally worthless.
For many people 100% free at once is just infeasible (eg because they prefer their job). We can deny that, but this won't change it. If we accept it, will ignoring (or repelling) them really foster FS aims, however defined?
(FWIW, I basically agree that "Windows+Firefox+non-free-plugins" is better than "Windows+IE", but that's again the quantitive, arithmetic approach.
Is there something wrong with that approach?
We likely agree that software freedom is determined per software per user, and that users need various programs. Then, yes, I argue an individual's freedom is like a weighted average over his freedom across applications. You argue it is the minimum over all.
We might also agree it involves less sacrifice to use 80% free software than 100%. Then when we convince someone to value it high enough that he'll go for the first but not for the latter, you dismiss his (ethical!) appreciation of software freedom; I say it's good, but more remains to be done.
Finally, because I've been disagreeing a lot, I should point out that we fundamentally agree: increasing the user base pales compared to teaching the value of freedom.
!hwe
PS: There's one thing that went where I won't ever go:
It is about a complete, firm, and definite liberation of every computer user.
Even the ones that definitely don't WANT to? Then it's not something I could call "liberation"...