Open Ballot: would you hire the FSF for the role of Linux PR department?

would I hire them?

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 5:30pm

No I wouldn't hire them, but I'd defend their right to do it anyway.

*Part* of Linux PR for sure

Stu (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 6:07pm

I would not want FSF (or any single-issue political entity) to control my PR, but the FSF absolutely has a fundamental role within the PR front.

We are in a very volatile and potentially very destructive phase of increased proprietary involvement in open source, open standard and free software development. All three are potentially at risk of being hijacked by proprietary interests. There are many (flamewar) examples, for instance office documents, where a proprietary interest has delayed, interfered with or hijacked consensus.

Sometime in the future it is possible that people currently badmouthing FSF will wish that their position was more widely understood and more widely supported.

No.

Ray Woods (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 7:08pm

The vast majority of people just want (or need) software that works and works well. They want it to just work, out of the box and not have to plough through thick manuals to do anything.

I think this is why Linux Mint and its Main Edition is proving so popular. (I've now even got an 83 year old lady across the road from me using it. It just works!)

To me Linux is the best OS available and that has nothing to do with it being Open Sourced.

Yes, they're the voice of free software

uomosenzanome - March 16, 2010 @ 7:41pm

The fact remains Linux and GNU are conjoined twins. To all those "No's" out there, I hate to inform you that they both share too many vital organs to be successfully separated. Please keep this in mind as you try to chainsaw your way through their shared heart in the name of "freedom from FSF coercion". Yes, we may be able to distinguish the face of Linux from the face of GNU, but when they come knocking at your door, you'll always be staring down at both.

I for one am extremely thankful to the FSF foundation for everything they have done in defense of the GPLs and the GNU project for all the great software and libraries I can use freely. If you aren't a corporate thief, stealing and making a profit off a public resource, how can you possibly be against the FSF?

Astroturfers, go away

Polly the Parrot (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 8:00pm

I learned the word/expression "astroturf" just recently. It is the practice used by some companies to throw mud on whom they dislike. And the people who actually do the dirty work are called, not surprisingly, "astroturfers".

Seeing the avalanche of implied negativism against GNU/Linux/FOSS that is creeping up lately in Linux Format and Tux Radar I am starting to think of at least two possibilities:

1) Future Publishing / Linux Format / Tux Radar are in the pockets of Microsoft,

or

2) There are a lot of "astroturfers" coming to these blogs/forums to contaminate the posts with bad things about Linux/FOSS.

Of course, it is possible that both (1) and (2) are true...

@Polly the Parrot

Tobi - March 16, 2010 @ 8:09pm

Do you really believe what you write there? First of all this is a podcast, not Linux Format (which isn't a huge FSF-fanzine either, but more balanced). Everyone, including the 4 presenters, is entitled to his or her own opinion.

I have difficulties to believe that MS would be interested in driving a wedge between the FSF and the listeners of this podcast - I don't think that that's worth anything for them.

The FSF has done fantastic things for the free software world and nobody will ever doubt that. That does not mean, however, that everyone will always have to agree with them. And I certainly don't like the idea of "Denial of Service attacks" on MacStores or of a strange "Windows 7 Sins" document which does not take facts too serious at points.

We should convince Windows and Mac users by showing them a superior OS with amazing technologies, not by telling them how wrong they are and by throwing the free software bible into their faces!

@ tobi & @ Anonymous Penguin

Polly the Parrot (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 8:42pm

I ended up replying to both posts under a single caption. I stand corrected in my addressing, but stand by the contents. Just to clarifyl

Still NO: It's not going about it the right way

adam_g2000 (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 9:04pm

All the above aside, it simply comes down to how its done. If (generically FLOSS) is supposed to be a club for geeks, then YES, but I hope it isn't - because the rest of the world needs to know what GNU/LINUX is capable of and it's scared of losing profit, being run by techies and people with beards and the sort of silly stunts that we see - eg that damned song!

Every time I see a customer and say it's Free, I get the same question and the same baffled looks when I answer it - 'What's in it for them'. The answer scares the general populous. Not just the corporates, even the not for profits we work for.

As I said in my first comment, change tack, change representatives and the world is our oyster.

@Polly the Parrot

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 9:16pm

"to say that what the FSF fights for is not "freedom" is to show that you (a *generic* you, not you tobi) does not understand the big picture"

What the FSF 'fights for' is restrictive access to software. Now, you -- and they -- may argue that they are doing so (via the GPL etc.) for the 'greater good'. That's fine; you/they are entitled to that view.

My objection is that appeals -- moral or legal, as in the case of licenses -- to the 'greater good' have absolutely nothing to do with individual freedom; quite the contrary, in fact.

That's my beef with the FSF: they claim to espouse freedom, whilst practising authoritarianism. If they dropped the pretence of seeking freedom then, yes, I'd still disagree with their authoritarian agenda. But I would accept that they were at least being honest about their intent. Right now that's not the case, and true freedom, as an ideological concept, is suffering as a result. That's what really p*sses me off.

@ Anonymous Penguin

Polly the Parrot (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 9:27pm

First, please, get yourself a unique, distinctive nickname. It's hard to talk with "Anonymous Whatever"...

"What the FSF 'fights for' is restrictive access to software."
How so? Everybody has access to GPLed software. Everybody can download its sources, binaries, make copies, use, redistribute, etc., etc. One just can't *IMPEDE* access to it. One just can't *RESTRICT* access to it!

Unlike many others, I have to say yes.

biggles1000 - March 16, 2010 @ 9:43pm

I agree with uomosenzanome, especially with the last point, as otherwise, there wouldn't be any order or politeness and 'this is my work, you can't make money out of it without my permission'. I don't think they would be quite suited to the role of PR though, but I don't know that much about them.

Just to clarify...

biggles1000 - March 16, 2010 @ 9:52pm

When I say I agree with uomosenzanome, I mean the first post!

I wouldn't

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 11:12pm

Personally, I liked the quality of Linux and other open source software, and wouldn't have been convinced by appeals to freedom, however much I might value it.

In fact, I'd have probably thought that preaching freedom with regards to software was ludicrous, since there's nothing inherently oppressive about proprietary software (if you don't like it or its licence terms, don't use it), and there are more important issues where freedom is concerned. My position has changed now, but I reckon that's what many would think when they hear "software freedom" being mentioned.

My last retort, I promise

Polly the Parrot (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 11:14pm

@ Anonymous Penguin [rb]:

My post:
"One just can't *RESTRICT* access to it!"

Yours:
OK, suppose I'm a certain Mr Gates [I'm not ;-)] and would like to include some GPL'd code into Windows. I can't, without causing myself all manner of pain."

Well, Mr. Gates still has *access* to the GPLed code, and he can use it; he just can't *STEAL* or *CONCEAL* it from the owner(s) of that code - he *can't restrict access* to it. He has to respect the *freedom* of others.

But this discussion is getting old. I'm moving on. Bye.

Exactly my point

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 16, 2010 @ 11:22pm

See?

Brought to you by Polly the Parrot.

@Anonymous Penguin (the one who keeps writing to me)

uomosenzanome - March 17, 2010 @ 4:37am

>>I defined it (freedom) in the only coherent intellectual manner -- the absence of coercion. I'm sorry, but the FSF's four 'freedoms' are simply not 'freedoms' at all. They are permissions, rights, granted to you by an IP rights holder (as you yourself acknowledge in your second point).<<

I'll say it again: your definition of freedom is not concrete enough to debate, so either define what you mean as well as the FSF did or drop it. All you've managed to do is to link the nebulous notion of freedom with the nebulous notion of coercion and expect everyone to guess what you meant by it. "Freedom is the absence of coercion" is like saying "Land is the absence of water". Whether you agree with it or not, at least the FSF gave us clear definitions of what they mean by freedom.

In any case, I think you are guided by misplaced notion of what freedom actually is. You aren't being denied your freedom when you walk off a cliff expecting to go across like the roadrunner and find yourself at the bottom of the gorge. You are simply being subjected to the laws of physics. If you want to build a glider or a bridge, or get shot across the gorge in a cannon, all of those things are fine as long as they don't violate the laws of physics. You can cross the gorge anyway you want, just don't expect to go across like the cartoon roadrunner or any other way inconsistent with the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics, there wouldn't even be a gorge to cross.

Likewise, the GPL licenses are the conditions under which code is released. You are granted the specific enumerated freedoms under the license. You also have restrictions akin to the laws of physics that keep you from going across a gorge like the roadrunner.

Now if you want to go ahead and create your own "Public Domain Linux", go ahead. Go make your cartoon world where you can walk across the gorge without falling, just don't expect to do it in the real world. Also, don't forget . . . even cartoon worlds have certain restrictions (eg. Acme products never work effectively for Coyotes --- how dare the Acme company deny the coyotes their freedom!)

>>You quoted me the first line of the Wikipedia entry for "theft". If you had skipped two paragraphs down, you would have found the more formal definition: "The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."<<

That isn't a more formal definition of theft, it is the definition of the typical "actus reus of theft" . . . just as it states. In the cases that the FSF has won, such as in the Paris Court of Appeals, clearly these situations met the qualifications of theft under the law, as judged by people who I am sure know more about it and have more experience than any given Anonymous Penguin. There is therefore clear judicial precedence to make the case that it is indeed theft to violate terms of the given GPL.

As far as moral aspects you brought up relating to theft . . . if I give someone $100 on the condition that they use $10 of it to buy bread for children at the orphanage, and I have reminded them for months that they need to get the bread and still they never do . . . clearly there is an immoral aspect that can be equated with stealing. There was not coercion by force to take the money, the person wanted the benefit of the $90 so they agreed to the condition for the $10. If they wanted to go out and get their own $100 their own way and spend it as they like, they can do it. But they shouldn't tell me I'm hindering their personal freedom after freely choosing to accept my money with the well-established conditions.

Yes, they are the voice of free software

The Great Stallboy (not verified) - March 17, 2010 @ 8:03am

My first thought was not to participate, because doing so I am certainly supporting what look pretty much like a personal attack to the FSF, but I was amazed by the number of NOes

Probably, the people who would vote Yes are out there using their time to write some good free software for all of you to use (while you speak so good of them)

P.D. I am with 'Polly the Parrot'

NO, they are the voice of free software

Pastychomper - March 17, 2010 @ 9:06am

I think the FSF does brilliant work and their hard-line stance, including those 'coercive' licences, is a great antidote to some of the more Orwellian practices in the IT world. In that way they are the voice of free software, and they help Linux grow in much the same way as a gardener helps a tree grow by pruning it. Even though that may reduce growth in the short term, it provides a stronger plant with more and better fruit in the long term. But a good product is not the same as good PR.

I wouldn't hire the FSF to be the Linux PR department, any more than I would hire a gardener to sell my apples. PR is neither the FSF's mission nor its strength; if I was going to hire a PR department, I'd choose a pro.

No!

Sol (not verified) - March 17, 2010 @ 11:02am

No, I would not. Stallman doesn't belong in Linux, he and his ken should stick with his BSD projects and leave Linux alone!

The embarrassing uncle at the wedding

dazfuller - March 17, 2010 @ 1:08pm

Much like your uncle dancing at a wedding their enthusiasm has to be admired, but it still doesn't stop you from hiding behind the wedding cake and denying any form of relationship with them.

Often when reading about their latest escapades I'm left thinking that we really need an organisation to go in and clean up the PR devestation often bought about by hurricane FSF. Someone to turn around to companies and organisations and say, they're not really with us now here are some real reasons as to why you might like to use Linux (yes I am deliberately leaving off the GNU-slash) and how they really apply to your business.

No, because...

Splinter (not verified) - March 17, 2010 @ 4:24pm

If we are looking for popularity of Linux, really open sourced software has nothing to do with any PR effort and would therefore preclude the FSF. You may personally hate this or that company/system/technology but if people use it (and like it), who are we to put bars in the way of them enjoying it. And, if they can't use it, how would you expect them to adopt a Linux Distribution that will not undertake the application or hardware support they require?

The FSF do a fine job in the niche they occupy but, the Linux world is far wider than them and any publicity work on its behalf should be undertaken by those who can deliver to the whole community.

You can't have Linux without GNU...

statto (not verified) - March 17, 2010 @ 5:43pm

...so anyone who says they do clearly doesn't comprehend the debt of gratitude they owe to GNU. That having been said, the semantic pedantry of the GNU/Linux proponents, while interesting in geek circles, is not the kind of discussion we want to be having with a PR company, which FSF aren't anyway.

The best PR for Linux (or GNU/Linux if it's really that important to you) is it's users. Not that we should preach like Apple fanboys, but we should be doing subtle things to get the word out. As an example, I took my laptop on a group holiday. All the others in the group were using it to surf the web, check email, listen to music etc.. Guess what? They found it completely intuitive and hassle-free. This is the kind of PR that no company can generate.

@ Zappa: Let the witch hunt begin

Polly the Parrot (not verified) - March 17, 2010 @ 6:23pm

First, your post/comment looks very much a hysterical nervous breakdown of a teenage diva. Get a grip and try to discuss ideas instead of freaking out. It is not by "shouting" like a wounded sissy that you are going to make your point. And don't be personal - if that's all you can do, there is a big chance that you don't have ideas to talk about.

Now, to your sorry post:

>>> @Polly the Parrot: they say the FSF does a "great job" and you somehow believe that they're being paid by Microsoft?! What sort of warped, zealot logic is that?
--- If I say to you "You are a great guy, but you are ugly, stinky and dumb", is that any less offensive?

>>> "Oh no, there's a debate as to whether something could be improved in the free software world... IT MUST BE EVIL MICRO$SCHAFT BEHIND IT!!! HATE HATE HATE!!"
--- Where did I show hate, my little diva? I am discussing ideas and legal entities and economics and businesses, not people. Sorry I hurt your hemorrhoids.

>>> You know, perhaps it's possible to point out that not everything is perfect in the free software world, without somehow pointing it at Microsoft.
--- Sure it is, but "Microsoft" in a context like this does not mean only the company of Redmond, but also all it represents. For those who can read...

>>> People like Polly the Parrot cause more damage to the movement than anyone else: seething, angry zealots who can't face the tiniest bit of criticism without throwing a massive OMG MICRO$$$OFT IS EVIL ITS ALL MICROSOFT FAULT YOU MUST BE PAID BY MICRO$$$OFT tantrum. Totally out of touch with reality.
--- People like me are more in touch with reality than those who pretend nothing is happening and just go with the flow. I can take a lot of criticism if I know what I am being criticized for. Please be more specific in your (plagiarized) accusation, so I can defend - and eventually correct - myself better.

>>> Polly, please leave my community. You're only causing damage and making us look like weird, angry zealots.
--- What if I *don't* leave YOUR community? You gonna tell momma on me? First, it is not your community - a community does not *belong* to any one. Second, who is hating now? Third, you have all the freedom in the world to express your *ideas* to - if you want - distance yourself from the "weird zealots" and become just another sheep.

Looks like I am touching the correct buttons of some people here. It is good - complacency makes the world bad. However, if I were in the physical world and not in an Internet forum, by this time I would have been crucified, or sent to prison, or burnt in a bonfire in the public square. The "powers that be" *and* the populace don't like independent thinkers. They don't like their "reality" to be stirred - much less shaken (hope you get the joke). So, all it takes is for the first one to take a shot at Polly the Parrot and then suddenly the whole crowd sets out to lynch Polly. Oh, well, such are the ways of the world...

Grow up, Zappa.

POLLY = LOLLY

gg67 (not verified) - March 17, 2010 @ 7:07pm

I've listen to the podcast for a while, and while the guys are pretty
harsh sometimes, I like it, I'm glad they have proper opinions and
don't just turn the podcast into a Linux circlejerk, and I'm glad they
point out flaws so that we can always improve. All this stuff is
generally good.

And all Polly can do is say that Microsoft pays them? WTF? Can that be
the only reason they're not alwasys 100% positive Polly?

The logic here is almost retarded. If Microsoft was paying them, then
they'd just shut down the whole site and magazine to not give Linux a
platform at all.

Pollys level of paranoia is pretty disturbing. Get help dude.......

To all the Polly haters

Polly the Parrot (not verified) - March 17, 2010 @ 7:21pm

This means, mainly, "Anonymous Penguin" (another one... sigh!) and gg67:

Read my reply to Zappa. In special the second-to-last paragraph.

Then go back to the fairy tale, and stop wasting your time replying to me. You know what I mean, if you understand figurative language. I'm right, and you know it. You just don't have the guts to stand out. You prefer the comfort of conformity.

The question I have to ask myself is "why do I care, after all"?

Naming, Philosophy and Affordabilty

zygmunt (not verified) - March 18, 2010 @ 8:00am

Nomination matters little. Pragmatism rules. Cost matters. What one must have to serve a purpose decides. Sometimes gratis, sometimes taxed.

Not a literal PR firm

Andrew Cole (not verified) - March 18, 2010 @ 12:41pm

You guys need to read the whole ballet question and not just the headline. This is the important bit.

"But we're asking whether, regardless of its good work in this field, the FSF has helped free software grow or whether its hard stance against proprietary software has harmed Linux up-take."

No, FSF is not the way to go - take OSI instead

Gawges (not verified) - March 18, 2010 @ 1:03pm

First things first, forgive-me for my bad english, I hope you can understand me.

I wouldn't hire FSF and don't think they are the "voice of Linux". The way they try to control the development of the free software through their moralist discourse and condemn whoever "betrays the movement" resembles the medieval age's Holy Inquisition. I think they created much more discord and struggle within the free software movement than contributed to unite it towards a common objective.
Instead, I would hire OSI without a doubt.

While not structured as a PR Firm...

HandyGandy (not verified) - March 18, 2010 @ 2:47pm

I would take the FSF as Linux PR firm 1000 times over the Tuxradar staff.

Once again the Tuxradar staff managed to form a totally asinine question with the clarity of a SCO lawyer. Leaving people once again with the chance to answer either the question in the title, the question in the body or the question as one understands it once they've read the included links. And, of course, you will no doubt chose to discuss in your podcast the question that puts you in the best light, and I suspects puts the FSF in the worst light.

So now you have people like "Anonymous Penguin who is not Bill Gates" but does not deny being paid by him for acting as one of the 'great unwashed", ( BTW for Polly that is what astroturfing is: a person paid by a company -- Microsoft is the company principally known for this tactic -- to claim they love their products and are a "man off the street" thus causing the appearance of a fake grassroots movement. ) and claiming that GPL is not free because developers choosing it are not naive enough to release their stuff under a license like BSD, so that Microsoft can appropriate their code into Windows without any compensation, monetary and non monetary, like they did with the TCP/IP stack in the BSD Unixes.

I'm quite sure that you will find some way of once again saying that Linux is so much harder to use then the all-so-simple Windows. Uhh guys Microsoft products are not known for there ease of use. That's Apple. Microsoft is the company whose products fail in astonishing ways either by program flaw or malware attacks. Failures that require you to ask for help on websites like bleepingcomputer.com ( I notice these Windows help sites and particular malware recovery sites are multiplying ) where some guy will tell you to download and run cryptic programs named GMER. They won't explain what the programs do or the techniques the programs detect malware. This happened to me, it reminded me of the bad old days of the high priest of the ( IBM ) 360 so much I decided to avoid windows as completely as I could.

You most certainly will find a way to once again bash people who want to avoid Mono because of patents risk while conveniently ignoring not only TomTom, but also the recent Amazon deal and the other pending patent deals.

I have never been one to completely avoid the use of proprietary software. Until the recent incident I split my time approximately 50%-50% between Linux and Windows. I don't mind flash. After all it's in one shared object that
I can delete any time I want. The two things that concern me are the risks of proprietary software becoming so entrenched in FOSS that it becomes impossible to separate the two, and that we simply accept things like flash and stop trying to replace it. At least with the FSF around we don't have to worry about those risks because the FSF will always keep us honest.

As for the Genius Bar, well the action sounds like something more suited to ImprovEverywhere rather then the FSF, but anyone who wants to annoy a place called the Genius Bar is not going to get any complaints from me. Especially when my experience tells me the place would be better named, the "Morons who probably can't help" bar.

In conclusion Linux without GNU is fine with me if you can get Linux to agree ( after the kernel is GPL). Then you can remove findutils and binutils and bash and vim and emacs and the rest of the gpl stuff. Including the gcc stack.

PS: I love all the dweebs-come-lately telling the linux community how things should be. After all you really do want to change the development process that has made linux as successful as it is ( against large odds) and change it into the Windows development process. Just one question. Where are you going to get the billions to sink into it?

"So now you have people like

Anonymous Penguin [rb] (not verified) - March 18, 2010 @ 4:12pm

"So now you have people like "Anonymous Penguin who is not Bill Gates" but does not deny being paid by him for acting as one of the 'great unwashed""

Nobody had previously asked but, no, I'm not paid by Gates. Nor any other corporate entity: I'm unemployed, and fill my time with voluntary work with local adults with learning disabilities, doing up our home, and writing public domain code.

And for the cretins who can't read, ever since somebody pointed out that it was difficult to know who they were talking to as I originally posted as 'Anonymous Penguin', all my posts onwards have had the initials '[rb]' suffixed to the 'Anonymous Penguin' (&_&).

Yes, they're A voice of free software

uomosenzanome - March 18, 2010 @ 4:53pm

I need to qualify my answer I think:

Would you hire the FSF for the role of Linux PR department?

Yes they are a voice of free software (there are also other voices of free software) but I would hire them since I agree to their license. I do think it is important to have MANY voices for free software and not just the FSF, but since the question was if if would use them as PR, yes I would. If Microsoft wants to abandon its whole proprietary operating system thing that will never pan out, they can do PR for Linux too. In fact, I think they already have in a way by demonstrating hope poorly their attempt has been when compared to Linux. The greatest PR for Linux has probably been Microsoft products. Most people I know switched because they were fed up with it.

LOOK AT THE SCOREBOARD

Reality Rant (not verified) - March 19, 2010 @ 7:10am

No. Look at the scoreboard. Linux is stuck at 1% of the desktop market forever. Whatever the FSF do there track record shows that they have not increased the Linux market share in more than a decade.In the real world that is called failure.

I personally reckon that the whole OpenSource / Free Software / Freedom debate is a Redmond initiative to divide and conquer.

Its the quality of the code, the ease of use to NON Geeks and usefulness of software that matters to the masses. Thats why despite Redmond's best efforts Firefox are gaining market share.

Something will survive

Stu (not verified) - March 19, 2010 @ 1:45pm

Hopefully, whatever disastrous corporate and proprietary decisions the bulk of Linux users end up following, there always will be a FSF and a Gnu maintaining a genuinely free and available core operating system. It is an insurance policy that we should all preserve, whether you like or dislike the individuals running it.

"We also understand trolling

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 19, 2010 @ 8:13pm

"We also understand trolling for hits, what this 30 second post is... and YOU are a link WHORE.

Yes, you are a whore. Embrace it openly."

you mean, go write for zdnet?

don't give them any ideas

Free Software is important, Linux isn't

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 22, 2010 @ 3:06pm

I don't think the FSF has ever tried to act as a PR department for Linux. The GPL and FSF are here to protect the four software freedoms that are listed in the preamble of the GPL. The FSF is not concerned about making Linux popular, they just want to ensure that we have a Free Software alternative to the proprietary operating systems. One of these alternatives is GNU/Linux, but there are also other operating systems made of Free Software.

I like my GNU/Linux system and I think the Linux kernel does its job just fine. But I've also used FreeBSD and I don't see a big difference between the two operating systems. If Linus Torvalds and the other kernel developers suddenly decided to join Microsoft or Apple and discontinue working on Linux, I could easily switch to using the same familiar Free Software applications on FreeBSD. No harm done.

Therefore, I think that Free Software is much more important than Linux. And I think the FSF got their priorities right when they decided to stay determined in protecting Free Software, rather than to sell their ideals and work as a PR department for software that includes non-free code.

It's GNU/Linux

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - March 23, 2010 @ 12:50pm

FSF does a commendable job.

The rush to "Windowize" Linux will destroy it.

Who would you hire, alternatively - Novell?

Troll Poll

Eruaran (not verified) - March 24, 2010 @ 11:49am

I fail to see the point of this poll other than the fact that its just a nasty shallow troll for people who aren't interested in the important issues.

heck yeah!!!

Bob Loblaw (not verified) - March 25, 2010 @ 1:48am

The FSF embodies every principal that should exist when it comes to computing software and hardware philosophy. If they annoy you, you are likely the enemy or a brainwashed victim of the enemy.

I'd have to say no. Given

Doug (not verified) - March 29, 2010 @ 4:37pm

I'd have to say no. Given the various reports about their antics in discrediting others rather than promoting their own credits makes me think they are something of a "loose cannon". Not the kind of thing I'd like to promote Linux and all it's wonderfulness. I'll be the loose cannon, thank you very much!!