NOTE : before I start this post, know that with "free" software I don't mean free in price, while almost all free software I use is also free in price, with "free" I mean software that gives users the freedom to do whatever they please with that software
So if you know me you know that I am very picky about what I want to use. I use Emacs and on any other editor I feel a need to change most options due to my way of working not being what is seen as the standard. Which, in programming-oriented environments, is more common than you'd think. Because of this tendency of mine I tend to prefer free software more, I like being able to change stuff around very easily. Eventually I started looking for more free software since I liked both the idea behind it but the way they worked tended to be something I prefered more often.
But with anything nice some issues always rise up, and I'd be lying if I didn't hold my own grudges. Most of them stem from one source of frustration of free software
I feel that a lot of the big voices when it comes to free software have an issue these to segments, and I will cover both of them and argue why I think they are bad and what I think would be better.
First of all, purity fetishism, with this I mean an obsession with making everything "purely free". I get the intent behind it, it makes sense that when changing a standard you would want to make the best imporovement. But the world isn't a machine, we can't just change something and expect everybody to adhere to a new standard overnight. To add to that, I think rejecting open source projects just because it isn't "a hundred percent free software" is just not productive and is definitely not going to convince people to build upon this movement. Infact I think it would discourage them, hearing people tell you your way of doing things is wrong is already not the best motivator but also telling them that the new option, that is marginally better, is also not good is even worse.
Second of all outdated views. This partly ties in with the previous point, namely because I feel like the reason a lot of the main voices of free software value the purity of free software so highly has to do with the fact that they lived in a world where the tech world was a lot less aggressive and living in a free software world was very doable. In the present day most people get raised on nonfree technologies, and a lot of people HAVE to rely on nonfree software. I for example HAVE to use proprietary software in order to do certain goverment related tasks. I think that instead of trying to enforce purely free software it is going to be way better to fund general open source and free software projects. I also think we need more resources for people to discover alternatives to proprietery software and that these lists should be made by newer and less experienced users. This is due to some programs being marked as "alternatives" despite being wildly out of date
This was a while lot of yap to just kinda get to 1 main point. I think we should be less concerned about being so obssesed with the morals and phylosophy of free software and we should instead work to make better software and more resources to help people have an easier time getting into free software. Overall I think that a lot of resources and alternatives are out of date and while they might be functional, most people in the modern day find it easier fto validate using the nonfree alternatives compared to using a software that they view as "old and outdated". ok thats all bye :3