Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
- Rainer Trusch writes:
OfB: What are some of the advantages of Free Software for businesses?
RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users. All these reasons apply just as well to business users as to individuals.
[...]
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else. On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone. On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
The vast majority of users can learn to program, it is just like learning a new language. If the program is proprietary, then the user will never get the chance to ever see (so that s/he can learn) or modify (also to learn) the source code, which are two of the four freedoms. If I can't read or write in a particular language, then I can ask a friend (or a company) to do it, if I can read/write, then I can do it my self.
I also think that the difficulty of basic (not BASIC ;-) programming is geneally overestimated. Some might remember the times when Dos (without Windows) was popular. Most people had a few self-written batch files on their disks. Of course, the batch language was terribly limited, but they could have done the same things in bash (without needing the more complicated bash features, though some might have progressed to them, just like some invented quite involved tricks with batch files, most of which would have been much easier to do with all the useful tools of the GNU system).
Now I'm wondering whether it's part of the propaganda of non-free software companies to make programming appear very difficult and only for the "elite". I don't know if it's intentional, but the effect seems to be so. It's kind of as if car makers would claim that riding bicycles is a professional sport and therefore everyone who's not an athlete should not try it and always drive a car instead. Telling people that that's not so is already a step to give some amount of control/choice back to them.
Another point is about choice. How many users of a non-free OS do actually still know that there is more than one word processor, web browser, or whatever (leave alone, operating system)? The use of open standards and interoperability (which is possible with non-free software, too, but is implicit with free software since every interface in it is automatically open) generally fosters the development of alternative programs, so every user, whether or not they can or want to program, can choose the one they prefer.
More importantly, they really own their data (see http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200104/200104.htm), and are not at the mercy of a company to let them access their own data in a few years. That's certainly an important form of power for anyone who uses their computer for more than writing greeting cards and other very short-lived kinds of data.
Frank