> >> I can turn your comment on its head and it works quite well: we can't settle for technically inferior free software if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers.

> > Well, users can't control their computers in that example. They can hope to control their computers, or hope that the developers which actually control their computers don't do anything nasty to them.

> I don't mean to speak for hyperpape, but I think that was the point: it's evident that some users value convenience/features/usability/etc over the control of their computers, so unless free software is as good or better than nonfree alternatives then these users won't have control.

If that is their choice, sure. But most users I've talked to (this is completely anecdotal, and I usually talk to strong-willed people) recognise the importance of free software and will do something about it. Maybe they won't replace all of their software with free software, but they usually are willing to lose some non-mission-critical functionality.

And besides, free software usually has better features, but that's not the pitch we should give. It's the wrong lesson to teach. The right lesson would be "it has almost anything you want and if you want more you can modify it, pay someone to improve it or ask a community to improve it without dealing with a company or developer which doesn't give a shit about you." Why not start the conversation about free software with "it respects your freedom, and usually has more features / is more reliable but you have the freedom to improve it or get others to improve it for you" rather than just "it has more features".