"When you wrote "we" in the above, I think you actually meant to write "you", unless you're
actually involved in this initiative and have taken the bizarre decision to criticise it publicly."
Well, I consider myself to be a part of the community, as are the people behind Linux-libre.
"In any case, since it doesn't look as if you're giving friendly advice ("handful of extremeists
[sic]"), I guess those involved might want to look a bit further for strategy tips."
It seems to me that the motivator behind this project is the idea that mere existence of
proprietary code is bad in on itself, and it needs to be removed. Even if those bits just sat in the
HD unused. I, for one, can't see the harm. Sure, they could cause harm if they were being used,
but the user can choose to avoid hardware that needs proprietary code. So why do we need
"That said, with the more prominent strategic initiatives in the area of making Free Software
more popular stuck in the mire of "shiny, shinier, shiniest" while abandoning basic functionality
Those two are not opposites, you can have both. You need both. And the people who make
software sexy are usually different from the people who work on the plumbing.
If we only focused on the latter (functionality and reliability) we would all be running Emacs.
Emacs might be good for certain users, but 99.9% of worlds population would choose something
else, and that "something else" would be Windows or MacOS. How exactly would free software be
better off then?
If we want to liberate users, we need to make free software appealing to the masses. If we want
more free hardware, we need more users. And if getting more users means making the software
"shiny", then so be it.
It's quite telling that you consider software that looks good and sexy to be a bad thing. No
wonder Linux is stuck at around 1% of the market.
"Meanwhile, beyond the narrow experience of a bunch of desktop users whose "Nvidia is working
fine now", proprietary hardware remains a continuous and real problem."