Talk:Free Software Foundation anti-Windows campaigns

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft: Windows Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Low-importance).

This article should be removed

The article lacks any significant encyclopedic content, it lacks notability and it is aq soapbox article and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Criticism on Windows Vista is already in the Vista article and the FSF who is responsible for this campaign has already a separate article as well. There is no need for a separate article about some FSF campaign criticizing Vista. This article is like an invite to every other campaign to add article on themselves in Wikipedia. hAl (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be removed

The notability derives from the basic questions that the campaign puts. In addition, big users as Intel have expressed serious doubts on adopting Vista. I'll try and describe the basic question in a new section of the article, striving to be objective and not partisan. It is not just a free vs. non-free operating system question, but addresses issues that will encompass the design of electronic appliances in the next decades. Therefore, it deserves a balanced explanation in an encyclopedia that aims at giving quickly understandable information about relevant facts. The question arose in an FSF campaign involving a Microsoft OS, so let's just inform the people about the point from a neutral point of view.

ale (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a relevant question does not make YOU relevant, sorry. The fact that a small group agrees with a large group isn't cause for notability either, at least not until the small group actually, you know, DOES something notable.
I also think this article should be removed.Kingoomieiii (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... The small group is the BadVista supporters (7000 registered supporters at end of 2008[1]). The large group is presumably Intel (86,000 employees worldwide at end of 2007[2]). However, they merely consider TCO and productivity (see e.g. CompModelsTCO) which is not quite the same subject. Furthermore, Intel "obviously" lauds Vista[3].

The reason why BadVista should not be removed is that it embodies a question which is rather unique. It is difficult (and nonsensical) to cover that question in Wikipedia independently of BadVista. So, is it a relevant question? Dunno. To answer that, one has to put another couple of questions: Is computing an epochal transition? (How does it compare to, say, the advent of writing systems at the end of neolithic?) If yes, will freedom be preserved during that transition? (This is not the place to philosophize whether Wikipedia would ever have existed if Richard Stallman hadn't launched the GNU project, but some of the implied considerations would help to correctly place FSF and its campaigns.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale2006 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be removed. It got good press, raised points others would not raise, and was successful. It is written from also written from a neutral tone and is not SOAP. It is certainly notable enough to deserve the short article it has.Scientus (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BadXP → Free Software Foundation anti-Windows campaigns – general name. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 23.226.70.113 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Free Software Foundation anti-DRM campaigns" would be more specific and clearer... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Free Software Foundation anti-Windows campaigns" title would be better because it excludes Defective by Design not listed here. 72.51.41.46 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

DRM

Please say that Product Activation caused much grievance, of course in article itself. 2001:4858:AAAA:1B:0:0:0:1207 (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS X is not "less restrictive"

No, FSF does not "like" Windows XP neither Mac OS X, and not all FreeBSD and GNU/Linux are "entirely free" (only these in Free GNU/Linux distributions are entirely free). There is some way to rewrite this article 177.126.57.128 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Software Foundation anti-Windows campaigns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614034441/http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/29/defective-by-design-.html to http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/29/defective-by-design-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]