How can you say freedom activists “Purists”. We are purists of what?

I did not call any freedom activist a “purist”. I called “purists” those who tell the world the “truth” about vista. There is a big difference between these two statements.
:)

[UPDATE: I have edited your comment so to fix the tags]

[UPDATE2: Duh, by providing the following quotes, I guess that I have to include the source, no matter how hard I have tried to avoid linking to it. They originate from the "Vista News Watch" section of badvista.fsf.org as of 2006-12-19T13:59:51+0200.]

Here are some of the quotes that are used to promote the badvista campaign:

After all, according to a study by Softchoice, 94 percent of PCs do not meet the system requirements for Vista Premium.

Running Vista today is a headache. Crashing Explorer every time you access your printer is just what you and your friendly Sysadmin need during your super-busy day.

or the (sorry for not including hyperlinks)

25 Shortcomings Of Vista

When someone tries to harm a product’s sales with quotes like the above, then you are right; this is not propaganda, it’s a joke. IMHO, the absolute highlight is the list of the 25 shortcomings of vista, before they are actually released to the consumers. A 10-year old child would have done better with that list!

I did not write anything about software patents. You try to guess here. What I wrote was strictly about the badvista campaign.

You dissagree with a centralized point of information about an OS who’s marketing campaign is the bigest marketing campaign the largest corporation on the planet has ever done!

Not at all. I would agree with a campaign originating from an alliance of all the companies that actually sell open source operating systems. I have already written all this.

It is because, as I’ve said before, tomorrow it may be too late.

Maybe. OK. This is how you see things. I respect that. Please, respect my belief that it’s too early.

:)

By what you say, FSF should not be interested in Software Patents either. It should not be interested in most stuff that it is. I do not agree.
Freedom can be assaulted in many ways. Vista is just another one.

So, the purists will enlighten the world… I totally disagree with these tactics. Freedom means that you are actually free to make choices according to your needs and your personal interests.

How can you say freedom activists “Purists”. We are purists of what? I agree that you need to be free to make choices and FSF is not making anyone get GNU/Linux over Vista, nor does GNU/Linux lock you in, thus reducing your freedom of choice. You dissagree with a centralized point of information about an OS who’s marketing campaign is the bigest marketing campaign the largest corporation on the planet has ever done!

My question is why does it have to happen now. IMHO, neither linux is absolutely ready for the desktop nor the vast majority of the computer users cares at the moment about what the FSF fights for. So, I guess the time for this change has not come yet.

Although this comment is a bit out of context and would be better in the original article, I will answer.
It is because, as I’ve said before, tomorrow it may be too late. They are slowly but surely eroding your freedom. Ever heard the phrase: “The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.”? This is what it’s all about.
They use FUD, Software Patents, Copyrights, IPs, Lock-in, Monopoly and everything else they can to stamp down opposition. Right now the opposition is Free Software, and you’re dissagreeing that the FSF is trying to tell the truth about the next big thing.

This campaign is what is usually called propaganda. As I don’t buy Microsoft’s propaganda, I will not do so for propaganda originating from the FSF either.

My main argument is that I do not consider that this campaign is FSF’s responsibility and that it, by doing so, weakens its role. This kind of campaign suits a company’s marketing department. AFAIK, the FSF is nobody’s marketing department.

You wrote:

It is not just about better software or better development process, it is about freedom. People should be aware of what is wrong with Vista (DRM, Hardware costs etc) before they make the step.

So, the purists will enlighten the world… I totally disagree with these tactics. Freedom means that you are actually free to make choices according to your needs and your personal interests.

In an article of yours you have written:

To us, the outcome is undeniable; Linux will eventually become the OS of choice for the majority of the Personal Computers in the world. The only questions that remain however are: “When will that happen?”

My question is why does it have to happen now. IMHO, neither linux is absolutely ready for the desktop nor the vast majority of the computer users cares at the moment about what the FSF fights for. So, I guess the time for this change has not come yet.

It is not just about better software or better development process, it is about freedom. People should be aware of what is wrong with Vista (DRM, Hardware costs etc) before they make the step.

MS has a 500 million dollar campaign to promote Vista. Free Software was BadVista. I found the webpage actually quite useful to refer people when I want to warn them about Vista, instead of giving them a dozen different links to articles.

This is a quite crucial point. If MS gets the amount of Vista sales it wants, it will be much more difficult to convince people to switch, especially after they’ve shelled 80-200 bucks to get a new shiny OS (not counting the HW costs). And Vista will be the ultimate lock-in.

As they say in the site: “But sometimes, the cooks get greedy. They crank up the temperature because they are late, their guests are waiting on them, and they need things to happen faster. At moments like this, we either jump out of the pot, or we cede a sizable portion of our livable space all at once. We are now facing such a moment with the release and possible adoption of Microsoft Vista, a moment where there could be a massive and sudden reduction in the freedom of computer users.”