Religious argument that comes down to preference. Might as well say "Why Emacs misses the point of modal editing."
Edit: Downvoters, care to engage at all? Or do you just disagree with the idea that reasonable people might hold a different preference to yours, whichever flavor you prefer?
I didn't downvote, but I think people disliked your use of the word "religious", as it's sort of a discussion-stopper.
To answer your point, the difference is that most people confuse the terms, which have a very different connotation. One is about software quality, the other is about users' freedom (as defined by the fsf).
Emacs does not try to appeal to business (or users in general) by using the principles of vim in a more business-friendly connotation, so comparing the issue at hand with "emacs misses the point of modal editing" kind of misses the point, if you will :)
> I think people disliked your use of the word "religious", as it's sort of a discussion-stopper.
That's kind of the point. There's no use arguing about it since it's a matter of personal preference — i.e., religion.
> Emacs does not try to appeal to business (or users in general) by using the principles of vim in a more business-friendly connotation
Open source software does not try to appeal to users by using the principles of the FSF. I don't think this illustrates a problem with the metaphor. They're both fine editors and reflect the preferences of their developers. Ditto different software licenses.
The "preference" of whether you submit to a dictator because you have no choice or {nothing here because you have no choice}.
Free software is what gives you a choice. Then you can prefer it to proprietary software or not. But replying "it's a preference" to an article trying to explain what free software is and isn't and why it exists, makes no sense. "Why it exists" or "what it means" is not a preference.
The preference is whether, as a creator, you license your work under a free software license or an open source license. The FSF's piece attempts to sway creators, and argues why they should use the FSF's license. Users never had a say in the license of the work they consume, so they're sort of irrelevant.
I'm not sure what dictators have to do with anything.
Edit: Downvoters, care to engage at all? Or do you just disagree with the idea that reasonable people might hold a different preference to yours, whichever flavor you prefer?