According to the author this is bad. I agree with this point for the purpose of this discussion.
The author tries to limit people's freedoms.
The author tells me I should try to limit people's freedoms.
For the sake of their freedoms.
P.s. I'm not familiar with the author or their software.
P.p.s. Luckily there's less need to port Linux software to Windows these days since Microsoft has partnered with Ubuntu to create a Windows Subsystem for Linux which is capable of running an Ubuntu user space and bash shell directly on Windows.
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/about
and https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/install_gui...
He then goes on to say that he won't permit his software to be compatible with other platforms like Visual Studio, _even at the cost of performance_.
If that's not cutting your nose off to spite your face, it's still definitely a direct attempt to limit your freedom.
If he were merely trying to convince users to move to Libre systems while making no plea to the developers that might otherwise enable users to choose against his wishes, you might have a point: but that's not his goal.
Not that you implied different, but I think that this text isn't a great example for the many cool things the CCC does.
If you hate people who use windows, then don't be surprised if they do same to you.
If this guy had built something good like VLC media player - nobody would have listened to him and it would have been forked, ported and his version would have been forgotten by now.
(Oh and I bet more than half of his crummy apps will easily run on Apple's OS and Apple is arguably worse than Microsoft had ever been.)
I think the author of the article makes that alternative intent of the movement clear in that they are uncomfortable with the freedom actually offered by GNU licenses. If even as a user of GNU software you somehow can perceived as helping a non-Libre developer (no matter how indirectly) you are condemnable morally by the reckoning of the author. I find this consistent with my assertion that the argument is not one of greater freedom, but philosophically an altruistic one.
Why is everyone just picking apart the logic behind this? It makes me (a Linux user) think that Windows-ecosystem people feel entitled to a port of all software, "because Windows".
Actually it's quite the contrary, when you maintain a Windows-only piece of software you get constantly bugged by the few dozen Linux / OS X users.
I mean, your OS selection happened because "the many benefits your favorite OS brings you over Windows are way more important than not having software".
If you really want to run Windows software, why not install Wine, VirtualBox, or... Windows?
Also after having checked his/her works I'm not sure why would anyone want to use them (on windows or otherwise). For most of them there are other alternatives with less bigot authors for whom, if needed, one might even send contribution.
Bigots like Stallman or this author do the most harm to the image of free software movement.
But next to enabeling, productive visions there are also visions that end up making things worse.
I can understand that assessments differ, but I can see that this author clearly and explicitly envisions to force others into his preferred systems by encouraging to crippel their enviroment to make their everyday life worse.
This is not exactly the kind of vision I would like to support. I'm all in for positive, productive visions though.
Doesn't this sort of closed-mindedness fly in the face of the spirit of FOSS and community? Plus, today's MS is not the evil empire of yesterday. I'd rather be in bed with them than, say, Oracle. Long time Java hating .NET guy here- so I am probably biased though.
[1] http://www.infoworld.com/article/2841412/open-source-softwar...
[2] https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-the...
[3] http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/m...
Even though I don't agree with his position (I fit in the "I don't care if it works on Windows or not, if you care pull requests are always welcome" camp), it's a reasonable one to have.
Calling other people bigots because you don't think their idea of free is free enough, however, is very bad taste.
Matters of preference (another meaning of "taste"), however, are hard to argue about.
You are right in implying that it is rude. What would be the socially acceptable term for this phenomenon?
BTW, the author never expressed the wish to force anyone. It was a request.
It's not just the rude term that irks me here. I'm often getting a very fanatic vibe from people who viciously call out sentiments like the author's.
Finding a position on a vision is something probably everyone can do. Bonus: In certain cases, if it is percieved to be relevant enough, it enables democratic societies to exercise what could be described as a public discourse.
But if it helps you I could claim the fighting/purging thing you tried to put into my mouth. ;)
His reason to not forbid it is because the GPL doesn't allow it. At least that's what I got from his second sentence.
I'm with you on the fanatic vibe people get in discussions on this issue. I think it's a weird effect of something which fundamentally seems to be a good signal: That people really care about the issue. That's ok for me. ..or at least a good start for a better exchange.
I agree. that is why we are discussing why calling people who use windows ignorant supporters of evil is a form of bigotry.