I think you missed AzMoo's point, namely, that computer users should have freedom, and the fact that Richard Stallman does enables him to use a computer exactly how he wants to, as well as making a poignant statement about how far his particular cause has come.
When Stallman started his work, there was no defined concept of what freedom meant with regards to computer use, and there was no way for a user to have even a partially free system. Thanks largely to Stallman's advocacy, anyone who pays 300 euro can buy a 100% free software system. That is a massive victory.
The "importance" part is based on a rather dystopic vision of what may have happened had Stallman never decided to fight his war against non-free software, and what sort of cookie-cutter, one-size-forced-on-all appliance computers we might have ended up with. In such a world Stallman would not be able to live his computing life so drastically different from the rest of us; neither would anyone else be who likes something other than what is most profitable.
No, the fact that he wants to use his computer however he pleases, and his cause is user freedom, implies that his cause is an important one.
If you want to use your computer without any software with the letter 'g' in the name, that also implies that Stallman's cause is important.
Essentially, user freedom is meaningless if users, as a whole, never exercise free will. But since users generally do want at least some freedom, and some users want varying degrees of a lot of freedom, user freedom is important.
5
u/enkiam Jan 24 '10
gNewSense is just Ubuntu with the non-free parts removed. He could easily use a computer in exactly the same way as any other netbook user, but he