Hyperbollically, I fancy doing some murders. Looks like fun. That cool?
If someone believes something is harmful - and that belief rests on a coherent and rational philosophy - then why shouldn't they seek to criticise and deter it?
Should climate lobbyists just shut the fuck up too?
I said: if someone buys a computer then they’re grown ups that can weigh the pros and cons for themselves.
You said: BUT WHAT IF WE ALL THOUGHT LIKE THAT AND DIDN’T FIGHT INJUSTICE AND HAD NO LAWS AND JUST LET CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPEN. YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!
The point - which you've still not addressed - is that certain behaviours are harmful. FOSS people believe that proprietary software is harmful, just as climate change scientists believe that burning fossil fuels is harmful and... pretty much everyone believes that doing murders is harmful.
All of those beliefs are founded in rational, coherent philosophies.
That's not a straw man. It's not even really reductio ad absurdium. It's argument by analogy.
As to your question: I'm not arguing for the restriction of anyone's behaviour - you are. People should be free to use all the proprietary software they want. And people who believe that that is harmful should be free to say so.
And, ideally, people would discuss differences and maybe learn something. Rather than telling the other side they're not allowed to comment.
In summary: there’s a difference between saying “that’s not the best solution imho, but I accept peoples’ right to choose” and “anyone who uses this is harming themselves and other people”.
Someone’s private use of OneDrive doesn’t impact you unless they try and share a document. In which case you can tell them to bog off or send it by email instead. 🤷♂️
Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..