A more consistent argument would’ve been: “open source advocate, Gimp, Inkscape and others run even better on my mac than on linux” (would disagree on that, but at least it would be a more consistent argument)
To be an open source advocate I have to only use open source software? How would I drive my car? Or use my phone? Or my TV? It's just not practical.
I advocate for mostly open source server side software. I wrote a Masters dissertation on Linux and normal peoples interactions with the Linux desktop. I record a podcast twice a month (selfhosted.show) and edit it under Linux sometimes and sometimes on Mac.
My argument, such as it is, is that the tool I use to build and maintain my open source infrastructure doesn't need to be open to allow me to further the open source agenda. Linux changed my life and I do everything I can to give back to the community.
Things are not manichaean zero sum game.
The way now is really not even on the desktop, Linux lost there and now the world has moved on. The war is on mobile, and Android isn't truly open in the way that Linux upstream is due to binary blobs and baseband. Hopefully someday we'll see a truly open mobile platform rise to supremacy, but right now we have two separate walled gardens on mobile and not much else.
Within those walled gardens, advocacy can be to use apps which are open source vs proprietary options (e.g. to use andOTP instead of Authy, or Bitwarden instead of LastPass, as a simple example).
Existing inside the walled garden we're all forced to exist in is not hypocrisy, it's pragmatism. Using the best tool for the job and acknowledging the deficiency of open options is just being realistic, not an example of a fall from purity. Not everyone is Richard Stallman.
Being dogmatic and pure about the license of every piece of software you use might win internet points but it’s not going to actually get the job done.
Sure. But I wouldn't go around calling myself an "open source advocate" while supporting some of the worst.
Someone can support and advocate for a software development model and for the freedoms and opportunities that can allow for without having to go all-in and ensure that every piece of software they buy, use, or support follows that same model.
A really great way discourage people from advocating for OSS is to harangue them for daring to use Photoshop in lieu of Gimp.
Obviously it’s really convenient and rewarding when best-in class products are also OSS, but that’s not the world we live in.
It strikes me as a really shitty message to say that the only way you can advocate or support something is to go all-in on the model. If the goal is to get more people using and adopting and developing with open tools, yelling at them for not being the pinnacle of “purity” sure seems like a strange way to do it.
If someone calls themselves a “free software advocate,” I’ll agree that that implies a much stronger dogma to a specific set of licenses — but that’s an ideological movement that is materially different from OSS.
A list of my open source contributions include co-founding Linuxserver.io, the Self-Hosted podcast, blogging extensively about open source software (blog.ktz.me) and work for Red Hat. I say this not to be 'look at me' but to show that I try to put my money where my mouth is. I wonder what the other commenters have contributed.