I'll be honest with you... I'm more concerned about open standards [...]
Damn, what have open standards to do with the present matter? Why are you
trying to bring them to discussion? I'm not talking about your points of view
(I did it before, and they didn't resist to analysis), but about your
attitude.
[...] because even though programs like Microsoft Office exist, the push for
them to adopt formats like OpenDocument is more important [...]
That push is a push to make a privative software comply to open standards.
It's not to promote Free Software, which is the present matter, by the way --
in case you didn't notice it.
[...] than actually getting the code to Office. [...]
Well, we have LibreOffice, we don't need Microsoft Office. People only need
it, surprisingly... to open Microsoft's formats!!, which, surprisingly
again... can't be opened with total success in LibreOffice and other FaiF
software. Do you see how you bite your own tail?
[...] If the end results are the same [...]
Hm, no: by definition, they aren't. See, you even can't take Free Software
into consideration. You don't care about it.
[...] and I can open up a document 10 years from now with proprietary or free
software, then everyone wins. [...]
Indeed. Everyone but (1) you, because you will necessarily be within some
contractual relationship with the distributor of the proprietary software you
use, from which you would be easily dispensed if there were Free Software
which fitted your purpose (it provides much better contracts than the
proprietary ones) and (2) the people who were prejudiced by the perpetuation
in society of this type of contractual relationship, of which you are a moral
accomplice. This second group is very big, isn't it? 99% of it are
constituted by people who even don't think about contracts. That's selling
sweets to children after asking them to put their names on a paper...
[...] There will be no end to proprietary software [...]
Nostradamus reloaded: the (o)mission.
[...] but it is essential the big companies play along.
Another phrase fluctuating in the atmosphere. And, well, we want them to play
with the same goals and under the same rules, don't we? Why have your friends
suddenly appeared playing on the other side of the force?
As for Trisquel, I love it [...]
That's you problem. I'm talking about other things. Though I love it too.
[...] because not only *is it one of the best looking operating systems*,
[...]
Hm, I love Trisquel because it made a compromise to be 100% Free as in
Freedom. Then the other reasons come, accidental ones. So, by comparing our
principles, we appear to *not* be on the same team.
[...] it educates its users in looking for free *alternatives*. In the past I
was.stuck with Adobe products but learned to use free *alternatives* like
Eclipse and OpenJDK instead. [...]
"Learn to use free alternatives" sounds good, but (1) is an accidental
consequence of learning what is Free Software, gaining responsibility for
what you do and then committing yourself to Free Software and (2) is
misleading: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative
----------------
We don't present free software as an "alternative", because it presents a
goal of having free software alongside proprietary software. That presupposes
that proprietary software is legitimate.
We believe that the only ethical way to distribute software is as free
software. Thus, we aim to make free software more than an alternative. Our
goal is a world where all programs are free, so that all their users are
free.
----------------
[...] I'm no artist, but I have a mini goal for myself to help test Unity for
Trisquel 6. That is because I believe in it and we are all on the same team.
Well, helping at the development is fine, thank you. But that seems you can't
get the difference between essence and accident (translating directly from
pt_BR, don't know which are the technical terms in English), nor between
goals and ways (idem), or ideals and strategy. That doesn't make us to "play
at the same team."
