"I don't know about you, but I have been victimized by bugs in software+hardware combinations
that could have been fixed with small software changes"
If you are a programmer, sure. But I'm no programmer.
"Now, if you think anyone is doing me a favor for letting me use the hardware I paid for the way
I see fit, refusing to fix obvious defects and refusing to let me fix them, maybe you'd also see as a
favor say a watch that couldn't have its time adjusted by you, and that had to be taken to a repair
shop to be adjusted, and after a year or two repair shops would no longer fix it because the
manufacturer won't let them any more, so that you buy newer models."
Why would you buy a piece of hardware from a company that treats you like dirt?
"Open your eyes, Janne, the devices you're sold as black boxes could be *so* much more useful
to you if you could just improve one tiny bit here and there, rework one or another detail, add a
feature or two, with help from people who won't have an interest in not helping so as to induce
you to buy their next improved model."
You still haven't answered the simple question I asked: How does Regular Linux limit my
freedoms, whereas Linux-libre does not? Seriously? And before you start telling me about the
ability to fix the code myself etc., I will remind you again: I'm no programmer. I could not make
"tiny improvements here and there" since I'm not a programmer.
Like I said: the problem is that FSF looks at this from a programmers perspective. But most
people are NOT programmers. They try to cater to programmers, while everyone else is shunned.
End result is that Linux has something like 1% market-share. If this was about liberating users,
the resources would be invested in spreading free software as far and wide as possible. But
instead of that, we have wasted effort that remind me of inquisition. Like Linux-libre and
gNewSense that are about cleansing the world of proprietary code, as opposed to actually
spreading free software or making free software better.
"Would you buy a house whose inside you can't paint with the colors you see fit?"
Flawed argument. I know how to paint walls, I don't know how to hack C, so removing the ability
to hack the code has ZERO downsides for me. Well, what about programmers? Well, last time I
checked, they can keep on hacking Linux, even the "non-libre" version of it. Sure, there might be
bits and pieces that they can't access, but that problem can be solved by avoiding hardware that
needs those closed bits and pieces. Removing those bits doesn't really accomplish anything, you
just get a kernel that can do less. The fact that those bits reside on the hard-drive does NOT in
any shape or form limit the freedoms of the user. They MIGHT limit the freedoms, if the users
makes the decision to use them. But even then, that is something the users decides.
Isn't it one freedom to choose using hardware that needs proprietary bits? Aren't we free to
"I guess the reason you can't see the benefits of freedom is because of the blinds you let them
put on you."
Of course I can see the benefits of freedom. But the thing is that all these things are by
programmers, for programmers. How exactly would Linux-libre benefit me? How exactly would
it benefit my 70 year old mother? Because she could hack the code and fix problems herself?
I'm not saying that GPL is bad, or free software is bad (far from it). What I AM saying is that this
effort is useless and waste of time. If someone cares so much about those binary-blobs, he can
choose to avoid them.
"Take them blinds out, open your eyes, and Free your mind!"
And I can do that by using hardware that has free drivers available. What exactly am I missing
here? How exactly am I being limited by running standard Linux-kernel as opposed to Linux-
libre? Seriously? That is a simple question and I wish to get an answer to it.