In any demonstration, you have to make some unproven statement, taken as true. It could be “1+1 = 2” or “God exists”. So sciences are methodologies based on believes. Lot of religions use logic and reasons, based on science and philosophy, to deduce things from their core believes. This is theology.

So if both science and religions are based on believes, and could have the same methods, how to distinguish one of the other ? We could argue that science try to reduce believes as possible. Personally I’m not good enough in sciences to argue with religious people, and demonstrate that point. In trying to challenge my believes in scientific models, I have to stay tolerant with religious people (I’m not sure I would otherwise); which is a most productive approach. Furthermore, it helps to have a critical point on view on science (as you’ve said, and to taking it as a blind faith)

How do you know that science is not a believe like the other ? My answer is in challenge it with other believe systems to explain reality. Of course some things make a lot more sense with science methodology, but to be faire, te main point of religions is not to explain gravity.

I consider other believes as opportunities, no to explain to others, or to be taught by others, but making both and strengthen us all.

However, we shall to care do not confuse religions and believes. A lot of people took part in religions and do not believes, and others believes and do not took part in a dedicated community. This is a different topic. Communities are generally a good thing, but hierarchy lead to abuses. This true in every organization, religions include

I am not sure this is a wide spread behavior among the IT. Reading the “Debian Free Software Guidelines”, we could have some doubts. My point is not that free software are good or bad, but that is not enough. If we want te be responsible as producers, we have to organize as such to stop production that killing us (with climat change or military for example) and promote the one that emancipate us. Free software are a way to achieve the last one, unions the fist one

I said such things too, but one day I ask myself, could I said it in front of people bombed by my tools ? Our tools are not neutral things, but produce and distribute by social relationship that we could fight. Sorry but we the rise of fascism and ecological disaster we could not afford to give up our power as producer to mass murderer

Sadly yes, Linux kill

There sure is new comers thanks to the enhancement of graphic environment and gaming. But this is still very marginal, and there is some good reasons.

If we want to promote linux and FOSS we couldn’t only rely on use-cases and good-will of people, we need to find structures that make people use mac and windows. FOSS movement make some interesting stuff about the education system, and the institution use of windows, which are a lot more impact on the OS we are using than the qualities of such systems. But the so-called “politically neutral” forbade us to prevent this situation to repeat itself. Microsoft works on daily bases with tremendous resources (not only monetary). People who are making this decisions have some carrer interests that is not align on those of the masses.

Free-software without anti-capitalism is only open-source, sry

That not a moral state; some capitalist on corporation help us a lot. The main reason for the linux promotion is the choice of Valve, but because that choice is not profitable (in a capitalist way), we should consider it as the exception.

I’m not saying that it’s helpless. It’s quite the opposite : I’m saying that if we want to have a massive action, we have to take the power were it is.

Unfortunately very instable on my machine (Mint, 16 Go RAM, i7). I would not recommend on Linux