Hi Dr. Nagarjuna,
Sorry for being a bit late in replying but let me add to Rishi's compliment that you write well and are very articulate in expressing your thoughts.
I believe that you agree with me that over all we should attempt to write "good freedom software".
Now by being focussed on what "good" means here you have asked a very Macro question because you, me and all our friends know that "GOOD" means different things to different people. Its an extremely relative term.
Still I will try to answer your question in a very generic way and in total lay man jargon ...
According to me ...
1. a software is good if it helps me achieve desired set of functional tasks with minimum focus on technicalities (end user perspective)
2. a software is better if it helps me achieve desired set of functional tasks with minimum focus on technicalities and is extremely pleasing to work with through consistent interfaces (end user perspective)
3. a software is best if it helps me achieve desired set of functional tasks with minimum focus on technicalities, is extremely pleasing to work with through consistent interfaces, has a definite growth plan, manovers to incorporate best industry practices and APPEALS TO THE MASSES.
Now ... i redefine the definition of a good software here ... a good software is that tends towards the best with a plan to be the best. Over and above that, if it is FREE; masses would embrace it instantly.
Dr. Nagarjun, in that case your, my and FSFs beliefs of FREEDOM SOFTWARE are realized to its full potential. I stress ... the POTENTIAL exists.
If our software wins, our philosophy wins.
I am not saying that we are not getting there. I stress ... We have taken giant strides in recent years. But there is a lot to be done. You may show some features and tell me that the issues i have highlighed in above points are there to some/great extent in freedom software, still my experience with end user says otherwise. I repeat ... Good to Great ... cause there is a lot to be done. On software front as well as promoting the philosophy.
I was sad at seeing the reaction to a small mail from an end user "Rammanohar Reddy" with some of our friends saying it does not matter to FSF on what he or any other end user has to say on Free software/Linux. It does matter ...
Friends philosophies die without mass support and appeal. Though CLASSES are using the FREE Software, still we are far away from MASSES. Statistics support what i mean.
Windows XP: 210 Million Copies Sold http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/newswire/2004/05/03/rtr1356086.h...
Now my question is ... do these 210 Million people who might have bought this software dont matter to us? Some would say they dont. I would say they do.
We could make them switch by helping them.
another question: How many of them have heard about us and our philosophy?
another question: If they have heard, How many would switch? If Yes, why and if not, why not?
another question: Are they paying for the software because they hate us and our philosophy? I will answer this one - they are paying cause they dont have an option.
Give them an option and trust me friends they would switch. If you think you have already given them an option then explain them your options. "I dont care attitude" does not help.
210 million people are 209 million too many to ignore. Atleast for me.
Microsofts mention triggers a useless defensive reaction from a lot of our friends at FSF and elsewhere too. I am yet to understand why? We could take a leaf out from their research on customers and the expectations.
I repeat FREEDOM matters, does it stop us from evolving and improving. I have said this before, i will say it again and again and again ...
LETS TURN FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL MINORITY TO A MASS MAJORITY.
There is a lot of work to be done. I am sure Dr. Nagarjuna is doing his part, Rishi is doing his part and i am doing mine.
Lets write Good FREEDOM software.
P.S. Dr. Nagarjuna and friends i assume we understand what do Masses and Classes mean.
Hail FSF, Tarun ================== IF NOT I, THEN WHO? IF NOT NOW, THEN WHEN? ==================
_________________________________________________________________ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/...
I've been observing these threads for a while, and couldn't resist the urge to jump in with my point of view anymore.
First, "freedom" is a noun, so "freedom software" sounds very odd, so I'll stick to free (meaning freedom, as is obvious to people here). Everyone is right when they say good means different things to different people. And this divergence in interpretation exists even between "lay person" and people on this list, say. (Not that I'm saying anyone is better off, just different.)
There seems to be a fundamental difference in perspectives here. Tarun, if you didn't add the "Over and above that, if it is FREE; masses would embrace it instantly.", at the very end, like (not actuality, like) it was an afterthought, more people here would tend to assume you conform to their notions of what is "good". If your list went (and you truly believed) something like,
0. Software is good if it is free. 1. Software is better if it lets me achieve ....
and so on, much of this discussion won't even be taking place.
People (me included) sometimes do things because they've been conditioned by their environment to behave in a certain way. "Lay person" or "end user" doesn't mean the person is unintelligent, incapable of, or unwilling to learn. Society as I've experienced it (and anyone else in a similar time frame, for that matter) made it common place (if not acceptable) to treat software, loosely, like "intellectual commodities" whose insides can be hidden from the user when sold. It was reasoned out to us that those insides had more value to the creator as a secret. They were the reason the creator could put food on their table. Perfectly legitimate sounding argument given only so much information. A large portion of the regular population, haven't experienced how much easier and faster (intellectual and consequently societal) progress is if information and ideas are shared as in say, an open academic setting. That is how everything they saw around them was done, and they don't see the need to question it or think it wrong. For anyone, their freedom matters to them. Some people just don't realize what they are giving up when they use software that is non-free. Once explained, they will see what you're talking about and eventually convert.
[Arbitrary conversation log that seems fitting: http://actuality.wahgnube.org/index.php?p=88 ]
This isn't about the inherent capability of the software itself, because for most common tasks, excellent free software exist. Today. The reasons why the masses don't flock to them is social inertia as much as anything else. If the common man were to wait until "software becomes best" (by the definition on that list of yours) and free before using it, at that point of time though you've opened a channel to communicate your message, it might not be the person's driving force to stay there. What if a "bester" (making up words as I feel the need) non free software comes along?
What people are looking for here (or at least I am anyway), is something along the lines of "if the philosophy wins, what happens to the software is inconsequential".
Harish | http://wahgnube.org/
-
Harish Narayanan -
Tarun Gaur