Nice idea and a good way of introducing people to alternatives however I'd like to know what the people they met on the streets actually thought of the message - it's interesting they don't mention that. I'm guessing most don't care. Also, pushing your beliefs on someone else through a gift is pretty sneaky. If I asked someone for an iTunes Gift Card and they gave me an FSF Membership Card as the guide suggests I would be quite pissed off.[1]
I don't know. It seems more like a marketing stunt than a public service. They targeted Apple who champions a lot of free software. They could have targeted Microsoft. Or better yet LodSys.
Not sure there is much difference between Apple and Microsoft in terms of free software now, they both contribute and use free software but still have a large proprietary core.
This is the sort of stuff that made me decide to stop donating money to the FSF. Instead of using my money to help fund the development of new and improved GNU options that will help convince people to switch, they're wasting a whole lot of time on ineffectual campaigns like this. The goal should be to make GNU so good people will want to be using it...
Every significant software company does marketing, it's difficult to persuade people to use software if they don't know it exists.
It's hard to know whether this campaign is ineffective without some numbers. Will everyone leafleted ditch all of their Apple products and switch to Linux? Of course not, but perhaps some % will visit the FSF website and try some free-software programs.
If you have the ability to track the number of visitors to your website (I think the FSF recommends piwik for this) then you can get a rough measure of whether that number goes up noticeably in the time after a campaign, especially if you filter by IP addresses in the geographic area. No need for unique URLs.
It's a difficult message to get across to people in the course of a street conversation.
For your grandma who almost knows how to turn the computer on, and calls you to ask you "honey, did you erase the Google from my computer the last time you were here?", it's quite a strange, confusing, and possibly irritating interruption to Christmas shopping.
Is it any more irritating than other charity organisations that patrol the streets around Christmas time, at least in this case the FSF volunteers are not salespeople on commission.
>> "Is it any more irritating than other charity organisations that patrol the streets around Christmas time"
I would be much less irritated by a person working for a homeless charity approaching me that I would be a person from the FSF (especially considering most people won't have a clue what free software is).
Yes, but my issue was with the comparison to charities. Sure it can be annoying to be approached constantly but when someone says they are from a homeless charity etc. you know what they mean and can quickly decide if you want to give them your time/money. If someone stops you and says they would like to discuss the FSF you probably won't have a clue what it is and it'll be more annoying as you can't easily make a decision without finding out more information.
I am a huge believer in the power of free and open source software. But I always cringe when the FSF runs these kinds of campaigns. They exhibit an astonishing level of tone-deafness about the audience they are attempting to reach. IMO, the FSF really needs to make a better case to the average person who is never going to write a line of code or otherwise modify their software. Not saying that's easy and I sure don't know how to do it. But I am pretty sure telling people not to shop at Amazon or buy iTunes gift cards isn't it.
So, what kind of campaign do you think they should be doing? Granted, there are many other ideas (install fests, donate your old computer, etc) but these are already done, and they can't do that in front of the Apple Store.
Also, these other ideas are all based on some compromise: "Sure, go ahead and spend 2 grand on a macbook pro for you kids going to college, but at least leave the breadcrumbs for us poor folk". As much as it can help, it brings no actual progress to the ideals of the FSF. It would be more of a feel-good campaign than anything else.
If you want to promote Free Software, you need to have good alternatives to proprietary systems, but at the same time you need to fight against the mindshare that the giants have.
So, what kind of campaign do you think they should be doing?
Why not stand outside an Apple store and hand out DVDs under the motto 'here, free software for your new Mac'? Put LibreOffice, VirtualBox, Adium, and whatnot on it. Insert a flyer explaining what 'free software' means and suggest that they can donate to these projects if they like the software.
Sure, they will be running one OS X. But one step at a time is better than 99% thinking there were approached by nerd Hare Krishnas (nothing against Hinduism, it's about perception).
A dvd is not a good idea, but I don't think people know about those options (LibreOffice etc), so even a nicely made flyer or postcard with very clear instructions may genuinely make a lot of people very very happy.
You're definitely right here, I don't think the pro line does anymore and the air never has. Small USB sticks aren't much more expensive, however. Especially if you get something as tiny as 256MB and just have a network based installer tool for all the free software distributed.
That is certainly one possibility, but I have my doubts regarding the actual effectiveness in convince people to change their minds about their consumer habits.
The thing is: the FSF is supposed to be "nerd Hare Krishnas". They don't - rather, they shouldn't - want to compromise. They are advocating Free Software. Not open source. Not consumer-friendly gadgets. Not "cool things that Apple can't do". They will preach that using anything Apple is wrong, and they are rightfully voicing their views.
I'm a Free Software Foundation member. I support their goals. But I would rather the money be put towards developing free software and hardware that is friendly to it than these kinds of campaigns.
The reason that people go into the Apple Store rather than buying a fully free software system is that a MacBook Pro Retina is in an entirely different class than a Lemote Yeeloong (one of the few computers that is able to run free software end to end such that Richard Stallman is willing to run it).
I think that working to provide effective free software alternatives, and partnering with hardware companies that supports that mission, would be far more effective than dressing up in a GNU suit outside the Apple store.
The costs of doing this are much lower, and don't prohibit doing other stuff. If the cost of some paper and a black ink cartridge can get FSF.org on the HN front page for a few hours that might in itself be a net win.
As I said in my post, I don't really know what it should look like. But standing outside the Apple store telling people they just made a bad purchase decision is no way to win converts. This is like PETA standing outside a butcher shop telling customers buying Thanksgiving turkeys that meat is murder and offering tofurkey.
People want to feel good about their purchase decisions so you already have a strong headwind you are working against. The problem is that people have specific things they want to do with those new iPhones and iPads. The FSF position is that you shouldn't buy one. There isn't really a middle ground here. If my situation is that my teenager yearns to play candy crush on a new iPod touch for Christmas, the FSF message is completely at odds with that and nothing you tell me outside the Apple store on a freezing cold day in Boston is going to move the needle.
Absolutely agree, free software has so much to offer and yet here we see it being promoted using the most desperate and ineffective means possible: dressing up in costumes and handing out flyers to people - people who quite likely just had a positive buying experience at an Apple store which offered real products and solutions and not some half thought out nonsense on a piece of paper that only a few geeks are likely to understand.
They need to find another way, because this isn't going to win over anyone, and it may lead some to believe that free software folk are desperate nutcases (which couldn't be further from the truth). There is just no thought or substance to this campaign at all.
I completely agree that the FSF needs to make a better case. The PDF guide is simply too generic and vague - most non-technical users won't understand what it's saying. But I can fully understand how difficult it is to make a convincing case. How do you explain these issues in a simple, digestable format that takes a minute or less to read? And let's be honest, sometimes the open source version of a piece of software isn't superior to a closed source one (in terms of capability or UX). Perhaps the focus should be more on issues (such as privacy, for example) and questions to ask when using a program or service i.e. make people aware of the issues and the choices available to them? Give users information so they can make informed choices, but respect the fact that many will still go with closed source solutions.
BTW, I wonder why ChromeOS isn't on their list given that ChromeBooks will probably be a popular purchase during the holiday season. And I actually think in terms of arguing for or against an OS, ChromeOS is probably the easiest to argue persuasively against.
For example, you can tell people you can't print to your desktop printer without an internet connection and that every time you print (even to your desktop printer), Google records that action. Some people won't care, but others might not be happy with that. If you then go on to say that Google potentially [1] tracks and records your every action in the OS, you'll be raising awareness of important privacy issues.
[1] I say potentially because Google doen't reveal what they track and record in ChromeOS and that in itself is a question people should ask themselves when they use ChromeOS i.e. is it important for me to know what Google records of my online behaviour? Until Google reveal what they track and record, should I refrain from using their OS?
Let's fund an organization that calls people randomly to talk about software licenses and teach them the virtues of free software. Do it a couple times per week for each phone number. At night and morning and over and over...
That's funny. One of the reasons I buy Apple products is because I want to get away from the FSF and GNU. Now that I have a job and earn good money, I'd rather pay for Apple Care and have Apple fix my broken computer while I do something more worthwhile with my time than sitting in the basement trying to debug "Free Software".
This had to be one of the most depressingly naive perspectives on OSS I've seen on this site. It's really just an issue of trading money for convenience for you? Even granting that you're analysis is 100% correct, it's morally suspect. Your saying that now you've got yours, to hell with all the people who can't afford it or don't have access.
Really, you need to think this through a little more carefully. This is just embarrassing.
People buy computers to solve problems, not advance causes. It's not a zero-sum game like the FSF believes. I own Apple products but also use a ton of free software, as well as software that I've paid for. Fundamentalism doesn't help anyone.
Still, what if you can solve your problems and support a worthy cause, just with some inconvenience from time to time? Isn't it worth the inconvenience to support a worthy cause?
What's embarrassing is that you believe access to computers and software is some sort of basic human right. It is most certainly not. You and I have no more moral obligation to ensure free and fair access to software than we do to ensure free and fair access to electron microscopes.
So, go take your "free software" ideology and shove it up your backside. How dare you lecture me on morality, you insolent, self-righteous gas bag.
Some people do not believe that society would be better if everyone had access to basic needs. Food, shelter, and ability to improve their status in the world. Infrastructure like roads, math, and software to take a few examples helps to create those basic human right.
What about them? Should we all go stand outside a Lexus dealership for the 90% of the population that can't afford a luxury car?
Since when did access to computer software become a basic human right? This kind of fanatical ideology around software disgusts me. How is it any more acceptable than religious fanaticism?
Easy, boy. I am not saying that everyone should be getting macs. I am just opposing this short-sighted mentality of "I am free to buy whatever I want, therefore I am free". This is not real freedom, that's all.
Easy, boy. I am not saying that everyone should be getting macs. I am just opposing this short-sighted mentality of "I am free to buy whatever I want, therefore I am free". This is not real freedom, that's all.
If you want to spend money on something that just works, while still supporting free software, you can buy a laptop from a company like System76 or ThinkPenguin.
But why should I support "free software", especially when people like the FSF want to convince me to sign away my rights as a developer of such software?
I don't support restrictive, people-hating ideologies. And neither should you.
How is software freedom a people-hating ideology? The FSF doesn't say that software must be under the GPL or another copyleft license to be considered free. Permissive licenses such as the BSD, X11, ISC, zlib, and Apache licenses are also free-software licenses. Many software freedom advocates choose to use copyleft licenses, and encourage others to do so, because they believe that's the best way to reach their goals. But they don't demand that all software be copyleft.
Such troll message, I don't even know where to begin.
Is this really what some people revert to when offered useful software, often for free, which access to source and permission to use, modify and share the program?
If sharing is an "people-hating ideologies", what must proprietary software then be?
The guide, as well as this stunt, is laughable. The comparisons aren't even close to being the same value. And I wonder if Apple could sue the FSF for outright lying: nothing about the Macbook Pro is planned obsolescence. You can use it until the parts wear out. For me, my HDD died and it had been about 7 years so I decided to buy a faster model instead of replacing the HDD but it worked the same up until the end.
I'm sure they could at the very least attempt litigation for outright lying. Maybe false advertising? -- I suppose not since the FSF isn't selling anything in the traditional sense of the word. In any case that would be a PR nightmare for Apple. Goliath picking on David. If the lawsuit didn't financially destroy the FSF, and I doubt it would as many would step up to help fund it, it could possibly mean a ton of free PR/awareness/advertising/whatever for the FSF. I think a lawsuit is lose/lose for Apple here, considering this "stunt" was ineffective at best.
I love the idea of FSF and of free software. I'm a scientist and in my circles in particular, I can see the virtues of free software, open source, open access, etc.
I think though that for most people, they don't care about an issue like this unless it causes them a problem, for example it prevents them from doing something that they want to do.
So for example if they couldn't play Katy Perry on their iPhones/iPods because somehow Apple was a closed system and Katy Perry wasn't licensed. If Katy Perry could be played legally, openly, freely, on a non-Apple equivalent (key word here is equivalent) music player, then of COURSE people would flock to the free, open device.
The unfortunate fact is however that we have the opposite situation, where for many free/open software/hardware options, the perception (if not the reality) is that the free/open options are in fact not as "nice"/convenient/easy/glittery/appealing to use as the for pay, closed systems.
The perception (if not the reality) is that the free/open options are lower in quality (quality of experience, if not quality of device/app itself) than the options being touted as evil.
The only way to change this situation is to change the perception, and/or change the reality. The big companies like Apple have enormous amounts of money, talent, and will, to dedicate towards marketing (influencing perception). Same goes for the devices/apps themselves.
If you can show people something that they can do easier, better, cheaper, using free/open options than with Apple options, then they will (naturally) move there. What are some examples?
are there examples in the non-software/electronics realms where free/open/non-restrictive options have been more widely (or even equally) adopted than closed options?
Compact Disc verses Mini Disc and that digital cassette format (DCC I think it was) based on DAT comes to mind. Granted Compact Disc was established by the time the other two came along, but they did have advantages verses CD (smaller and recordable for a start).
SDCard verses Memory Stick would also be another example.
This is just a waste of time for all involved. If the FSF wants to advance free software, they should use donations to pay professional UX and graphic designers to improve the look and feel of those projects that need it.
Making free software better advances the cause of free software more than this ever will.
71 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 93.7 ms ] thread[1] https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/misc/GivingGuide2013.pdf
Imagine if this was extended beyond software into the physical world:
- instead of a new sweater, we've given you a schedule of anti-globalism meetup events, bring a protest sign and a gas mask!
- instead of a basket of summer sausages, we've given you tickets to a screening of the latest undercover livestock mistreatment movie screening!
- instead of a new TV we donated to the local Tea Party organization!
- instead of a new puppy, we've made a donation in your name to the Animal Liberation Front!
- instead of tickets to Hawaii we decided to donate the money to a carbon offset program, here's the receipt!
- instead of a new BB-gun, we got you an NRA membership!
While a some readers here cringe at the FSF going on the streets and speaking to "most people" about this stuff, I highly appreciate it.
Those FSF members got out of their echo chamber - it is not a fun job, some people won't care, but that is part of what makes this a good action.
Apple is also the champion of not allowing device owners to tinker with their devices.
This doesn't make their involvement into open source any less and it is highly appreciated, but it also doesn't raise them above criticism.
Also, LodSys and Microsoft have far less customers on the street. Especially LodSys.
For your grandma who almost knows how to turn the computer on, and calls you to ask you "honey, did you erase the Google from my computer the last time you were here?", it's quite a strange, confusing, and possibly irritating interruption to Christmas shopping.
I would be much less irritated by a person working for a homeless charity approaching me that I would be a person from the FSF (especially considering most people won't have a clue what free software is).
Would that not be the point of leafleting?
http://opensource.apple.com/
Also, these other ideas are all based on some compromise: "Sure, go ahead and spend 2 grand on a macbook pro for you kids going to college, but at least leave the breadcrumbs for us poor folk". As much as it can help, it brings no actual progress to the ideals of the FSF. It would be more of a feel-good campaign than anything else.
If you want to promote Free Software, you need to have good alternatives to proprietary systems, but at the same time you need to fight against the mindshare that the giants have.
Why not stand outside an Apple store and hand out DVDs under the motto 'here, free software for your new Mac'? Put LibreOffice, VirtualBox, Adium, and whatnot on it. Insert a flyer explaining what 'free software' means and suggest that they can donate to these projects if they like the software.
Sure, they will be running one OS X. But one step at a time is better than 99% thinking there were approached by nerd Hare Krishnas (nothing against Hinduism, it's about perception).
The thing is: the FSF is supposed to be "nerd Hare Krishnas". They don't - rather, they shouldn't - want to compromise. They are advocating Free Software. Not open source. Not consumer-friendly gadgets. Not "cool things that Apple can't do". They will preach that using anything Apple is wrong, and they are rightfully voicing their views.
Admittedly, not on a disk, but a nice flyer or something for this would be good.
I use it as a canonical example of unusable software.
The reason that people go into the Apple Store rather than buying a fully free software system is that a MacBook Pro Retina is in an entirely different class than a Lemote Yeeloong (one of the few computers that is able to run free software end to end such that Richard Stallman is willing to run it).
I think that working to provide effective free software alternatives, and partnering with hardware companies that supports that mission, would be far more effective than dressing up in a GNU suit outside the Apple store.
People want to feel good about their purchase decisions so you already have a strong headwind you are working against. The problem is that people have specific things they want to do with those new iPhones and iPads. The FSF position is that you shouldn't buy one. There isn't really a middle ground here. If my situation is that my teenager yearns to play candy crush on a new iPod touch for Christmas, the FSF message is completely at odds with that and nothing you tell me outside the Apple store on a freezing cold day in Boston is going to move the needle.
They need to find another way, because this isn't going to win over anyone, and it may lead some to believe that free software folk are desperate nutcases (which couldn't be further from the truth). There is just no thought or substance to this campaign at all.
BTW, I wonder why ChromeOS isn't on their list given that ChromeBooks will probably be a popular purchase during the holiday season. And I actually think in terms of arguing for or against an OS, ChromeOS is probably the easiest to argue persuasively against.
For example, you can tell people you can't print to your desktop printer without an internet connection and that every time you print (even to your desktop printer), Google records that action. Some people won't care, but others might not be happy with that. If you then go on to say that Google potentially [1] tracks and records your every action in the OS, you'll be raising awareness of important privacy issues.
[1] I say potentially because Google doen't reveal what they track and record in ChromeOS and that in itself is a question people should ask themselves when they use ChromeOS i.e. is it important for me to know what Google records of my online behaviour? Until Google reveal what they track and record, should I refrain from using their OS?
That will work as good as this one.
Apparently written by the same people who smash Google buses in Oakland. Or at least using the same style guide.
Really, you need to think this through a little more carefully. This is just embarrassing.
So, go take your "free software" ideology and shove it up your backside. How dare you lecture me on morality, you insolent, self-righteous gas bag.
Some people do not believe that society would be better if everyone had access to basic needs. Food, shelter, and ability to improve their status in the world. Infrastructure like roads, math, and software to take a few examples helps to create those basic human right.
It's okay if you don't want to pay with your time anymore. But perhaps it would be also nice to contribute to an ideal alternative?
Since when did access to computer software become a basic human right? This kind of fanatical ideology around software disgusts me. How is it any more acceptable than religious fanaticism?
I don't support restrictive, people-hating ideologies. And neither should you.
Is this really what some people revert to when offered useful software, often for free, which access to source and permission to use, modify and share the program?
If sharing is an "people-hating ideologies", what must proprietary software then be?
I think though that for most people, they don't care about an issue like this unless it causes them a problem, for example it prevents them from doing something that they want to do.
So for example if they couldn't play Katy Perry on their iPhones/iPods because somehow Apple was a closed system and Katy Perry wasn't licensed. If Katy Perry could be played legally, openly, freely, on a non-Apple equivalent (key word here is equivalent) music player, then of COURSE people would flock to the free, open device.
The unfortunate fact is however that we have the opposite situation, where for many free/open software/hardware options, the perception (if not the reality) is that the free/open options are in fact not as "nice"/convenient/easy/glittery/appealing to use as the for pay, closed systems.
The perception (if not the reality) is that the free/open options are lower in quality (quality of experience, if not quality of device/app itself) than the options being touted as evil.
The only way to change this situation is to change the perception, and/or change the reality. The big companies like Apple have enormous amounts of money, talent, and will, to dedicate towards marketing (influencing perception). Same goes for the devices/apps themselves.
If you can show people something that they can do easier, better, cheaper, using free/open options than with Apple options, then they will (naturally) move there. What are some examples?
SDCard verses Memory Stick would also be another example.
Making free software better advances the cause of free software more than this ever will.