> you can't (successfully) simply assume that the reasons for
> something being the way it is are purely ideological.
I didn't see you say anything remotely like that, but in that case, who are
you trying to prove that to? I don't think anyone disagrees with that point.
If anything, many bad outcomes we've seen are a result of a distinct lack of
ideological drive (or, ideologies, that focus on rejecting ideologies in
favor of so-called pragmatism, like open source).
> "This is free, so it's better" makes no sense, it's like
> supporting an Anarchist movement simply because you don't
> like how the government works - it's a failing proposition
> that has been superseded with good reason.
If one program is libre and the other is proprietary, the libre program is
better in the freedom dimension. If, like most of us, you support the libre
software movement, that makes the program better, because practical benefits
are secondary to freedom.
I'm not sure what your anarchism analogy is supposed to mean, but I happen to
be an anarchist, and one thing I'd like to point out is that there is not a
single "Anarchist movement"; several different ideas fall under the umbrella
of anarchism.
