In a lot of ways, the Opensource/freesoftware movement feels a bit idealistic. I agree with it from a moral standpoint; the user should be in control, and the programs should only do what the user wants. However, I also think it makes it much harder for companies to make money. Anyone can build your software for themselves, they really don't have to give you anything for it. This lowers the incentives for companies to make interesting software. I think it's self-evident that open source software, in general, is not as "good" as proprietary software. Using Stallman's example, Adobe Photoshop is very expensive and could be considered malware in some ways. But, if you compare it to the free/opensource alternatives like Gimp or Paint.net, it's clear what you are paying for. Photoshop is leagues ahead in terms of functionality and to some extent usability.
I also think that the movement is decidedly hacker, by which I mean it's not for the average user. It's cliche to say, but technology/computers/software have completely infiltrated society. My grandparents are on Facebook and my 10 year old niece has an Instagram. The principles of the opensource software do not reflect the interests of the average user. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it does explain why everyone isn't on board with the movement. Most people just don't care.
The animosity towards SaaSS is completely ridiculous in my opinion. Yes, it is by default proprietary and you are giving someone else access to your data and allowing them to control your computing. However, you get some incredible things in return. If you haven't used the Photos app for google/android you really need to check it out. I think it's a great example of SaaSS giving users functionality that would be totally impossible locally. Among other things, it backs up all of your photos so I can access them from any device, lets my search by faces, places, times, and camera used, and clears up space on my phone for other data.
In a lot of ways, the Opensource/freesoftware movement feels a bit idealistic. I agree with it from a moral standpoint; the user should be in control, and the programs should only do what the user wants. However, I also think it makes it much harder for companies to make money. Anyone can build your software for themselves, they really don't have to give you anything for it. This lowers the incentives for companies to make interesting software. I think it's self-evident that open source software, in general, is not as "good" as proprietary software. Using Stallman's example, Adobe Photoshop is very expensive and could be considered malware in some ways. But, if you compare it to the free/opensource alternatives like Gimp or Paint.net, it's clear what you are paying for. Photoshop is leagues ahead in terms of functionality and to some extent usability.
I also think that the movement is decidedly hacker, by which I mean it's not for the average user. It's cliche to say, but technology/computers/software have completely infiltrated society. My grandparents are on Facebook and my 10 year old niece has an Instagram. The principles of the opensource software do not reflect the interests of the average user. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it does explain why everyone isn't on board with the movement. Most people just don't care.
The animosity towards SaaSS is completely ridiculous in my opinion. Yes, it is by default proprietary and you are giving someone else access to your data and allowing them to control your computing. However, you get some incredible things in return. If you haven't used the Photos app for google/android you really need to check it out. I think it's a great example of SaaSS giving users functionality that would be totally impossible locally. Among other things, it backs up all of your photos so I can access them from any device, lets my search by faces, places, times, and camera used, and clears up space on my phone for other data.