I think he's completely unaware of the GNU/Linux distributions and the gratis software that comes along with them and the freedoms that that software offers to the user.
"
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. "
I don't see how Free software has anything to do with his post. First, there is only good Free software for certain things. Especially when the author was younger, there were no good Free software alternatives for many popular commercial products.
Even today, GIMP is no Photoshop, Blender is no Maya, Openoffice is no Office, and the list goes on, and this has been after decades of trying to catch up. The truth is that for many domains, commercial software is the standard and has been shown to be adept at outpacing Free competitors. (This is not true in many domains as well.)
And besides this, a teenager who is a sponge for learning the coolest and most popular software could not care less about the tired philosophical debate about free vs Free, they just want to be able to play with Photoshop because that's The Thing.
You're right, there was not other option back in the early 90s: piracy or nothing (specially in countries where it was impossible to acquire some specific software legally). I remember going to a computer shop when I was 13 trying to buy a C compiler, and they gave me a floppy with Turbo C (IIRC) and "copy it and keep it secret".
Things have changed though. It's not a free vs Free philosophical debate, it is about doing something illegal when you have a choice.
This is not just about teenagers. I can tell you that a legal copy of Microsoft Office for home use in Spain is really rare. Same for Photoshop, and other "essential" software that every home computer has installed, but nobody paid for it. It is, in practice, free.
I believe piracy is one of the reasons free software is not more popular, but well... I may be wrong.
"...they just want to be able to play with Photoshop because that's The Thing."
This is the problem. Marketing is really effective to teenagers as they have not worked out the reality behind the branding yet. So free software gets less feedback and a smaller user base and so it goes...
"commercial software is the standard"
I'm just hoping that using 'the standard' gets a bit old and being different becomes a bit more popular.
" “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. "
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html