I was trying to think why Dougie’s blog post this morning unsettled me slightly. It’s about not advocating, although the post doesn’t actually make any arguments about advocation itself, only consideration of all user needs.
But a rule I live by when advocating is that it’s not my choice to tell someone they will use Ubuntu because it does everything they need and nor is it my choice to tell a user that they can not use Ubuntu because it can’t do something they probably need. It’s worth while to advocate, educate and present the full value exchange to the user so that at the end of the day they can decide if they want to trade in iphone compatibility for a faster system that is more at peace.
I know I would be upset if I was passed over from being taught about important choices because the advocate was so considerate as to literally take the decision away.
And to answer another blogger today: I advocate because this idea of software freedom we have is nothing short of an industrial revolution in the production and provisioning of software, the software industry is new but it’s being fundamentally changed by the legal, economic and social challenges that have come about by having a fixed original work designed to be copied for free infinitum.
Of course it’s also nice to give people computers that work, but what’s the point if they don’t understand how transformative the process was that made it possible and instil a political will that stops harmful legislation from crippling the free culture movement.