Double standards
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
"""Linux""" fans when there are hundreds of GNU/Linux distros happily recommending proprietary software and pressuring people to install proprietary malware: "This is fine"
"""Linux""" fans when there are a very small number of GNU-endorsed GNU/Linux distros complying with FSDG and excluding all proprietary software, going against the almost-overwhelming current of distros which don't care about software freedom: "Nooo, this is oppression, you can't force your software freedom on me, this is censorship, people should be free to be used by proprietary software, it's Linux not GNU/Linux, here's a copypasta so I can own you (insert mean copypasta about Alpine meant to mock GNU and the term 'GNU/Linux'), you are such entitled nerds, why do you force me to use free software by maintaining a very small number of FSDG-compliant distros that I'm not even forced to use due to the high availability of hundreds of careless distros which happily provide me with proprietary malware? Also, I bully Stallman"
This may seem like a strawman but it's true, oppressive anti-social networks such Crapdit ("Reddit") and You"tube are full of people like this who mock the ideals of GNU. Obviously I don't wanna run proprietary JavaScript for ethical reasons so I browse these networks through non-JavaScript-requiring frontends while trying to avoid giving my data to these abusive places by e.g using Tor, but using a frontend doesn't actually get rid of the anti-ethics mindset in those abusive places, so you will see many people mocking ethics and stuff.
Double standards are almost always horrible maybe always even.
I don't have a fondness of liars or haters either as a somewhat random mention especially if they don't admit that's what they are doing.
This being said, they shouldn't mock FSF or GNU, because that's how "linux" as they call it started.
I do find fault on some things FSF and GNU do, but as a whole, I think their intentions are good and they try their best.
Another note: In these places people will generally claim to love """open-source""" ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open ) yet many of these people constantly slander other """open-source""" (or worse, actually libre) projects for petty reasons rather than out of actual ethical concerns. The idea of software freedom goes into the background (which shouldn't be surprising given how these people value "Linux" and "open-source" more than GNU/Linux and free (libre) software) and instead people spend time constantly passionately swinging crap at eachother back and forth about less important matters such as:
* "Vim good because minimal, Emacs trash", "GNOME trash cuz minimal interface", "KDE trash cuz non-minimal and confusing", "GNU trash because they care too much about ethics while I wanna spend time complaining about less important matters", "here's that extremely rude Torvalds' quote from decades ago calling GNOME devs interface nazis, it's still true to this day", "X11 = bloated trash obsolete garbage", https://rl.bloat.cat/r/linuxmemes/comments/1ix0e6a/gnome_is_good_but_i_cant_use_it_without_at_least/ , and so on...
Without a strong ethical foundation such as the ideals of software freedom, these people keep attacking themselves non-stop out of petty matters. A quote that depicts this situation very well (I don't really know Noam Chomsky so don't take this quoting as an agreement of everything Noam Chomsky says):
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.