> That's a good message. Because as we all (or most at least) know,
> free software is just plain better. [:=)
I don't think that's an accurate statement, and I don't think even the
FSF has ever said this. I think their point is that free software is
morally 'better', and for this reason will use it exclusively
regardless of quality. If the quality is lower than some piece of
non-free software, then they will work to improve it.
That's it exactly. Eric Raymond and co say that free software (or
"open source software") automatically tends to be technically better.
I hope he is right, but I won't claim that it's always true.
However, Brock Lynn wasn't necessarily disagreeing with me What he
wrote was quite vague--"just plain better" doesn't say whether it is
better morally or better technically. It could mean either one.
It's true that most readers would tend to think "better" means
"technically better." So it is better to be specific.
