It is fine not to like a piece of free software

"it would make things better if they did" is an incentive. As incentives go, it's a fairly weak one that doesn't tend to convince people

The problem with this sort of incentive in internet comment sections is that a lot of the nasty people don't tend to stick around long. They may just be doing a drive by nasty post. They may have even made a new burner account just to make one post.

If people are transient, then they will never see the outcome of "it would make things better", so they never reap any benefit from it

Anyways, my point was that argument is still trying to convince people of an incentive

Edit: I suppose what this is highlighting is that the "people will not just X" is really more "people will not just (spontaneously) X".

You need to give them reasons to X, if you want them to X.

I love this statement. It feels like it should be right, and st first glance it makes sense.

The problem I guess is that things aren't boxed so neatly. Most public companies have multiple products.

So, for example Microsoft share price doesn't reflect Linux quality because MS share price covers not just Windows but Azure et al. One can compare market share for desktop users (ie comparing windows to Linux desktop) but that's a very narrow focus that doesn't even extend to Windows Server vs Linux.

And it's not like googles share price is a reflection on Firefox, or Oracles is a reflection on PostgreSQL.

I love the line, it's well written, but alas it's likely not really true (most of the time.)

"it is compulsory to like free software"

"You will be prevented from grumbling about the software"

"Users must all patch or fork the software"

"Everybody will be forced to use the software"

"You will be punished if you express opinions"

"You are not allowed to mute or block others"

"You must not think about the opinions of others, but you must pay attention"

Parsing out all the bizarrely obvious stuff from this post, if we try to distill it down to an opinion, what's hidden in there? It should be expressed in terms of good and bad, not liberty. The liberty is obvious. What's it saying about what people ought to do?

* Devs ought to respect their grumbling users. They ought not be pissy about users who grumble but don't contribute. They ought not have some insular concept of loyalty where users who use other software are outsiders or splitters.

* Devs ought to selectively ignore their grumbling users, though, and contributors, instead of acting like slaves and getting burnt out. In this there's an implication that it's right to think you own your (version of your) project, and that you should control it if that pleases you.

* We should communicate our opinions, should not harass anyone, and should stop listening when bored or annoyed.

It all makes more sense when couched in moralistic terms, I think. Because it's not in fact about freedoms.