FSF Trying To Close The Microsoft Window

Windows 7 has been the buzz word in IT circles for quite sometime now. Its apparent good reviews by the press and Microsoft’s hold over the imagination of the general public, as being the only OS available in the market, is bound to attract some negativity from its opponents as well. A campaign launched by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) against the upcoming Windows 7 operating system, calls it ’treacherous computing’ that stealthily takes away rights from users.

On a dedicated website titled Windows7Sins.org , the Boston-based FSF lists the seven ‘sins’ that companies like Microsoft commit against users. These sins include poisoning education, locking-in users, leveraging monopolistic behaviour, threatening user security, enforcing Digital Rights Management (DRM) at the behest of entertainment companies, and invading privacy.

As a recent article in PC World reported, executive director Peter Brown of FSF has said that Windows has really been a DRM platform for some time now, restricting users from making copies of digital files. And if Microsoft’s ‘Trusted Computing’ technology is fully implemented the way the company would like it to be, the vendor would have ‘malicious and complete control over your computer’.

The article goes on to say that with such control Microsoft could indulge in activities like those of Amazon.com, which last month went into customers’ Kindle e-readers and deleted illegally-sold copies of novels such as George Orwell’s 1984.

One curious thing about this website is that it doesn’t list what is good about free software at all. In fact, there is no mention about alternatives to Microsoft’s OS on the website. The bone of contention for the discussion initiated by FSF is something most seem to be in favour of. However, the fact that Microsoft knows its marketing better than most and is a synonym of OS for most is a fact that all of us have to make peace with. Then shouldn’t FSF concentrate more on why free software is better than Microsoft’s offerings instead of bad-mouthing the company and its products?

As aptly noted by Jack Wallen in a blog on Techrepublic (Wallen was a key player in the introduction of Linux to the original Techrepublic), “I see why the FSF is trying to make a parallel with the ‘seven deadly sins’. In theory (and in practice) I completely agree with them. The only problem I am having with this is that it seems (at least from my perspective) that this campaign is no better than the FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) that Microsoft throws around day in and day out. The last thing the FSF needs is a FUD-driven campaign”.

Another writer Thom Holwerda from OS NEWS , seems to agree with Wallen when he writes, “If you want to promote the use of your ‘products’, you should emphasise your product’s strong points; focusing almost entirely on what is supposedly wrong with your competitors’ products doesn’t really seem like a good strategy to me. I would much rather have the FSF orchestrate an effort to promote the strong points of free software, without being so hell-bent on Microsoft this and Microsoft that”.

Even with DRM, users running Windows PCs still maintain more freedom and privacy than those, who foolishly use cloud computing services such as Google Docs and store their data there, reads an article in PC World. Also, isn’t it a fact that the general masses are not interested in modifying or studying the software. Their only concern is that the software should work and that too with minimum hitches. However, the fact that FS is actually free, and reliable at that, is of interest to most. “Free is the key here. Most users don’t know there are free alternatives out there. And that is what the FSF should be talking about. If there is to be an advertisement campaign, it should include information that shows the user that there are free, reliable alternatives to costly, proprietary solutions,” says Wallen in his blog .

Says Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, in an article on the topic on ZDNet, “Free software is more secure because you and the wider community are independently able to read the source code and customise any program you choose to use in your infrastructure. It saves you the trouble of relying on a secretive third party, and the public availability of free software code means that many qualified eyeballs, security experts and researchers around the world, are continually studying and reporting on its integrity”.

He further adds that the problem is that many companies are already locked in to Microsoft and it’s easier to pay money to Microsoft (or Apple, or Adobe, or whatever company that you deal with) than to take a leap into the unknown. Also, there are sometimes no alternatives other than to go for professional software. Applications such as Outlook or Photoshop are impossible to replace with free alternatives.

The points raised by the FSF, however valid, do not hold water because of their more-than-necessary aggressiveness towards Microsoft. It will, therefore, be a good idea for them to concentrate more on the positive value of their own products rather than condemning Microsoft all the way through. FS is a good alternative and it should learn to stand on its own feet without being so negative about the competition.