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.
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.
"Where is my child?" => "I'm sorry ma'am, we had a day trip, but in the interests of your child's freedoms, I was forbidden from tracking her."
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.
And malicious has strong connotations..e.g malware, spyware, which most "linux users" wouldn't necessarily apply to developers of legit proprietary software.
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.
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.
The goal of book burning is to remove information, private owned books in this case, from the public by destroying them. While one could smash them and disintegrate them through the use of massive force, burning was the practical tool used.
If kindle suddenly create a goal of removing information from the public, in this case some private owned books, and goes through this act by destroying the information from private people own devices, doesn't that act align itself perfectly with book burning, through instead of using fire, they used electronic means.
Sure, its not something I would like to see on Wikipedia. Its not neutral, and there are better, impartial wording one could use to describe, but is it wrong to use in a blog?
> doesn't that act align itself perfectly with book burning,
> through instead of using fire, they used electronic means
The original blog post could be interpreted as claiming what the kindles main purpose is, but I doubt RMS would defend such interpretation. A one time act, while notable, does not equal primary purpose, and he and everyone else knows that.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rhetoric
1.a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3. a. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.
I own a Kobo, but it's been seriously hacked by myself so it doesn't call home and only talks to SD cards. It also only gets non DRM epubs on it. Anything more would be considered virtual book burning on my part as well.
That's almost the definition of rhetoric.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/22/amazon-wipes-cus...
Calling a search function "surveillance" for one. RMS is no stranger to stretching really evil-sounding words to fit things they really don't.
Seriously. I read the first paragraph or two and was thinking "who the fuck wrote this, RMS? Oh... yeah, I guess so."
That being said, reading the other comments here, it looks like there's more nuance in what is actually happening here. This is Ubuntu Desktop using the global search, which sends search queries to a central server. While I don't appreciate that either, at least it's not what I had thought from reading the headline that it was sending all local file searches to a server. So, it's a particular behavior, but still, Ubuntu should provide transparency as to what is happening, and even though the user can turn this feature off, (Stallman even states as such: "Ubuntu allows users to switch the surveillance off") the default on behavior is what I sense he is objecting to.
Perhaps a suggestion for a more nuanced title (which might not have the same dramatic effect, but would be more accurate): "Ubuntu Desktop Global Search sends Queries to Central Server, and shares with Amazon, by Default!"
RMS has been /clearly/ right-on regarding these matters from day 1. It is the proverbial 'you' that is refusing to 'listen' ...
However, this article is well-written and clear.
In this case, he's got a very valid point (I disabled the adverts on my Ubuntu install), but he uses such over the top language that it makes much of his writing seem like a parody.
Ubuntu sending all desktop searches to Amazon by default (even if it's via a proxy) isn't cool, and isn't what most users would expect, but I don't believe screeds like this aren't going to make Canonical think again.