He didn't assert anything about peoples associations. He asserted that that there is an association between proprietary software and malicious treatment of the user. Now knowing a little about what RMS regards as malicious that is undoubtedly true in terms of the lack of freedoms.
Even on a narrower definition of malicious if it includes user tracking/monitoring then large amounts of proprietary software can be regarded as malicious. I would narrow my definition of malicious a little more personally but there are large amounts of fairly malicious software out there, very little of it Free software.
You might need to pick another line to take apart.
And I said that I would narrow my definition of malicious a little more so I basically agree although I should have mentioned informed consent and whether it is opt in or out.
I believe you're wrong. The vast majority of "linux users" don't buy into RMS's particular ideology. RMS proactively describes the differences between the OpenSource and "Free Software" philosophies.
Most Linux users might not buy into a boycott of Ubuntu -- in that sense they reject RMS's ideology.
But I think few would argue that proprietary software does tend towards bullshit -- the very DRM and the like that RMS is calling malicious. They might not go around calling it malicious, but they wouldn't consider RMS's attitude there extreme, just the actions he advocates.
Still disagree. I think your definition of "linux users" tends to be more desktop-oriented, where there is more of a philosophical bent towards an RMS ideology. My definition of "linux users" would include developers and sysadmins that are using it as a server, and use it for more practical reasons.
And malicious has strong connotations..e.g malware, spyware, which most "linux users" wouldn't necessarily apply to developers of legit proprietary software.
So you dismiss RMS's arguments just because he doesn't talk and write the way you think he should? Talk about derailment, by this logic you don't have to agree with anyone or anything just as long as you feel they aren't nice or polite or well spoken enough.
just because he doesn't talk and write the way you think he should
If he can't communicate his ideas in a calm and balanced way, perhaps those ideas don't have as much value as he thinks they do. Sorry, but method of delivery counts for a lot.
Jeez you are so emotional, you should just calm down. If you can't say anything nicely, you shouldn't say anything at all. Who believes an angry ranter like this anyway.
> If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute.
Whether or not I agree with it I found it quite calm and balanced (just like the phrase quoted above). Note there are no insults or exclamation points.
Perhaps his writing isn't the issue here, but your perception.
No, what I agree is his overall vision on free software. I don't care how he talk and write, but I can't agree with the way he speaks of his opinion (and maybe many others') as if it were a hard fact. Its not a matter of being polite or not, its more about the fact that basing an argument on opinion is not really credible.
Proprietary software is associated with malicious treatment of the user
I don't believe 99% of people out there associate proprietary software with malicious treatment.