I can't tell what's worse, people still insisting on using Windows or macOS despite them becoming even more locked-down than ever or the freetards who insist on using only FSF-approved GNU+Linux distros that can only run on 2011 Thinkpads.
Don't listen to these idiots. Even using a shitty distro with SystemD such as Linux Mint or Pop_OS is 1000x better than putting up with the bullshit that Microsoft and Apple are giving you and will give you in the future. Despite most GNU+Linux distros coming with some proprietary software, I have yet to encounter a single distro that requires you to link your installation with some online account, unless you count ChromeOS, Android (which is only Linux, not GNU), and SteamOS. I would say that you should stay away from those distros and maybe stay away from anything RedHat or vanilla Ubuntu, and that you should install Librewolf after installing your distro as most distros still bundle vanilla Firefox as the default browser, but other than that, you should be fine.
And look, I would love to see the day where nobody has to rely on proprietary software anymore, but we are just not there yet. I still like to remain optimistic, despite all the blackpills, but you need to be pragmatic about this. Sometimes, you do have to work within the system before you can fully replace it.
@xianc78 I love the free software movement and I have a lot of respect for Mr. Stallman and his valuable contribution to computer science, despite his eccentricities.
However I will never be able to justify the "everything must be FOSS or you're a stupid normie" mindset. Diehard FOSS advocates are some of the most toxic elitists and I don't think they understand that they're only hurting their cause. RMS knows this and tries his darn best to not blame individuals for being abused by bad software companies.
A normal person is not going to think "I should drop everything I rely on to do my work because this guy on the internet told me I'm a retard." They're going to think free software is lame and continue to delay the inevitable M$ bullshit by using old Windows and then eventually just accept the malpractice.
I think a lot of the evil of proprietary software is overblown too, yes it is inherently anti-user in some ways, but the whole point of concern is that it's *easier* to abuse, not that it's always worse or better. Not all proprietary software is malware. Part of education on Free Software should be helping people understand how FOSS is more trustworthy and make it a selling point, distinct from the faux-privacy-focused corporations that lie to people using black boxes. Telling someone they need to go schizo and change their computing habits overnight to become some copyleft protestor to their own detriment will do nothing.
When I found out about the FOSS movement I did not drop all of my proprietary software. Especially since I'm a gamer so that makes up 99.9% of what I do. But I did learn a valuable lesson about trust and was able to selectively choose some free software alternatives for my work so that I could control my computer a little more. Software freedom is all about making good choices for yourself.
He does free software.
>I should drop everything I rely on to do my work
I have never written to do that once.
I have just pointed out how it's clearly not your work if you rely on proprietary software to do it.
If people know that free software exists and was written to give the users freedom, without the message being distorted by "open source" degeneracy, the user has been given the chance to decide whether they will take their freedom back or submit to a proprietary master.
>I think a lot of the evil of proprietary software is overblown too
The evil of proprietary software is always underblown and discredited up - it's far worse than you could even imagine.
>Not all proprietary software is malware
Can you name a unicorn proprietary software that isn't malware?
Not respecting the users freedom is inherently malicious, but for that point I'll exclude that.
>people understand how FOSS is more trustworthy and make it a selling point
Focusing on a merely practical point as a "selling" point is doomed for failure, as proprietary software companies are very good at pointing out the very few cases where previously free software had become untrustworthy (i.e. xz-utils backdooring, where proprietary software had been slipped into a release archive) and very good at covering up the countless cases of proprietary malware.
If a company promises "trustworthy" proprietary software (i.e. partially source-available proprietary software shilled as fully source-available "open source" software), why would a user "sold" on trustworthy software not pay for a copy and run it?
If the user is instead taught to value freedom, they will say no to such proprietary software and remain free.
>Telling someone they need to go schizo and change their computing habits overnight to become some copyleft protestor
I have never written that.
>When I found out about the FOSS movement
A disaster as no such movement exists.
There is the pure and true free software movement and there is the corporate bootlicking "open source" movement and "FOSS" attempts to be neutral between both - but even fails at that.
>was able to selectively choose some free software alternatives
A disaster as you considered them to be mere alternatives, rather than free replacements.
>Software freedom is all about making good choices for yourself.
If you are always going to continue to surrender your freedom to proprietary software, are you making good choices for yourself?
> deeply insulting
Wtf are you on about
> I have never written to do that once.
Yeah because I wasn't talking about you. Unless you did say that? You are not the only user on your instance.
> name a
Like 98% of software produced before the internet made monetizing user abuse so easy.
Not going to bother reading the rest of your toot because it just comes off to me as overly pedantic autism meant to be "correct" and not to be helpful.
I haven't seen any other user on the instance say that either.
>Like 98% of software produced before the internet made monetizing user abuse so easy.
That isn't the name of a software.
Monetization means using something as a currency. User abuse still hasn't been directly used as a currency yet.