Is it possible that kids using the computers isn't the problem? Perhaps it is that their parents monopolize the devices and spend all their time on the internet instead of interacting with their kids. It's a parent's involvement with their children that has the largest effect on their school work.

That is not what I was trying to get across, you sure can use Linux if you don't share the ideology... It's more that just because you don't share the ideology doesn't mean it isn't important over all.

There seems to be an increasing movement, evident sometimes on Ubuntuforums for example to suggest Linux should become less Free (For reasons of convenience or market expansion).

There are more users now who don't care or only care about the free as in beer side of things. Just because they may be the majority doesn't necessarily mean it's right to change the way things were before.

I'm really to tired and exhausted at the moment to make a decent effort of what I'm trying to say... It's along the lines of if you're not happy with the way things are move to change them yourself or use something else. If you don't care whether your system is half proprietary for example you could always use Mint.

My opinion is that if Linux was not F/OSS, it wouldn't exist. From there I also begin to believe that the less Free it becomes the more likely it is to cease to exist. In the long run the only thing that can also prevent its extinction is openness.

Well I don't see people joining PETA and saying "Hey you know what, our views are a little extreme, lets try be a little more level headed".
I don't see people joining Greenpeace and saying "Hey now, Genetic Engineering's alright y'all". And lets not get started on Sea Shepard.
You also don't see hippies and vegans going to MacDonald's or Wallmart and working there in the hope to make it more ethical.

The point I am trying to make is that GNU started as the environment for people who cared about those Freedoms. Linux became part of that and is Licensed under the GPL. It is part of the Ecosystem that cares about those Freedoms. To turn around and say, well maybe those Freedoms aren't important, maybe we should become more mainstream so we can cater to the masses who like MacDonalds and Wallmart and don't care about Hens in cages or sweatshops, is kind of besides the point.

We all have our own reasons for using Linux but it would not exist without those freedoms... If you have a different view on freedoms you can also use *BSD, Solaris or something like Haiku (Etc. etc.). If you don't care, there is NOTHING that is stopping you from using Windows or OSX.

I certainly know that if I emigrated to a country and started saying people should follow my political views I certainly wouldn't be well received, it's no different with the F/OSS sphere. It is what it is. It is what it is because of what it is and really, most of us have bigger mouths than we should.

The Developers are free to do what ever they want and their projects can go in what ever directions they want them to. Users like me can be thankful for what they give us. Yes some are more rabid in proclaiming the Freedoms, but then again if a single project isn't free enough, a half-assed effort of replacing it is at least made.

Long post after a tired and long day tl;dr: Freedoms could be only a concern for a minority, but a large part of what exists is because of them. Even if they aren't the most important thing doesn't mean they aren't important.

Nothing would make me more patriotic than seeing NZ have the guts and foresight to install FOSS on government computers!

Government Microsoft usage is the worst tax of all.

To some extent a methamphetamine addict for example, is no longer exactly on the right emotional level to really be classified as human by the way you explain it.

In my country though most murderers are out of prison after 10 years. A person can commit hundreds of burglaries and they are being treated harshly if they get even a year in prison. From that perspective, criminals are getting off pretty lightly as is.

Having said that when you compare a prisoners rights in respect of search and fingerprinting, how is compulsory DNA after arrest any more invasive? Once arrested their person can be searched pursuant to arrest, there homes and vehicles even if the circumstances are such. Their finger prints are automatically taken and not disposed of... That is all accepted and has been for decades.

I fail to see how a DNA database is more invasive than a fingerprint database.

As far as I am aware, the voluntary is stored indefinitely because it is voluntary. The forced, where the person is found not guilty is destroyed.

The DNA is stored by a separate agency to those prosecuting.

This is my country though, I'm not sure what happens elsewhere.

But if you are innocent your DNA is not very likely to be there. If you have a reasonable excuse as to why it may have been there, the DNA is automatically useless.

When some one is killed violently and your DNA is found under their nails, through their clothes, etc. Further investigation reveals there DNA on your clothing etc... How do you explain that?