Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 10, 2010 7:43 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by lxoliva Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
> as long as they keep software or documentation that induces users to seek and use non-Free programs, they're still bait.
Ahhh... Denying access to knowledge and the means to help one self is now INCREASING freedom?
FSFLA are doing much more damage than good...
"Freedom of choice is what you've got, freedom from choice is what you want" seems fitting here in a backward, perverted way.
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 8:15 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Denying access to knowledge and the means to help one self is now INCREASING freedom? It's been that way for quite some time. For example, the FSF has objected to distributions that even hint that non-free software exists for them, no matter if (e.g., in the case of Debian) that software is not part of the actual distribution. Also consider the recent »FSF hardware endorsement« issue, where one of the conditions of FSF approval was that the packaging of the approved device will not display Windows or MacOS compatibility badges. The idea seems to be that people won't know that non-free software exists unless they are explicitly told, and that this knowledge must be withheld from them at all costs so they won't be lured away by the non-free side. In effect, the FSF (and FSFLA) appear to think that free-software users are mindless sheep who need somebody smart (like themselves) to keep them out of harm's way. Religions and dictatorships work that way but I don't think it is really appropriate for the Linux community, where people are mostly fairly savvy.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 8:45 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] Hmmm... I seem to be in quote mood today:Pay no mind what other voices say They don't care about you, like I do, (like I do) Safe from pain, and truth, and choice, and other poison devils, See, they don't give a f*** about you, like I do. Just stay with me safe and ignorant go back to sleep go back to sleep
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 17:54 UTC (Wed) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
Actually, I find it a feature to not have non-free software suggested. I mean, if you're running a FSF-approved distro you probably don't want the "knowledge" popups that you can install Adobe Flash everytime you go out and surf the web. You can just install things from the repo and not have to worry about getting proprietary junk.
For example, I had been using OpenBSD, primarily as a firewall, for a few years. I thought that OpenBSD was more-or-less free so I didn't mind installing from ports. Then one day I came across Opera in there and was like WTF? Great, I have the precious "knowledge" that I can install Opera, but I'd far prefer the *feature* that would leave crap like that out.
Freedom really is a feature. It's not about trying to keep people ignorant. FUD on...
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 19:45 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] People should be given the freedom to make informed decisions instead of deliberately being kept ignorant in the name of »freedom«. When you install Debian GNU/Linux, the installer asks you once whether you want the non-free repository made available. Apparently this is enough to tick off the FSF, which would much rather not see that question asked at all. I believe anybody adhering to the FSF school of software freedom can be troubled to answer »no« this once – from then on they won't »have to worry about getting proprietary junk« (by the Debian definition, anyway). It takes a special type of person to declare Debian GNU/Linux a »non-free« operating system simply for asking the question.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 20:01 UTC (Wed) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
I run debian, fwiw. In fact, so did rms himself for a long time. He certainly is a special type of person, no doubt.
People have had the freedom to install flash by having the decision repeatedly offered to them via their browsers. Now a huge amount of content is locked up in a format owned by Adobe. Are we freer for this? Perhaps it would have been best if we never went down that path, no?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 21:09 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Maybe we would all be better off if everyone had simply refused to go for Flash when it was new. However it would have been much better for people to avoid Flash because they made the conscious decision that Flash was a proprietary format with lock-in, portability and security issues and as such not worth the trouble, rather than to avoid Flash because they were never told that it even exists. (It would have been helpful to have had a viable free (as in speech) alternative around at the time, but that is neither here nor there.) The problem with this approach is, of course, that it presupposes that people will actually take the trouble to think this over. It requires educating people to be smart enough to take that decision rather than keeping them ignorant by taking the decision on their behalf and then not telling them about it. Politics teaches us that it is difficult to get many people to think rationally about important issues, which may explain why the FSF school of software freedom seems to favour the second option. Unfortunately, the Linux community consists to a large extent of fairly savvy people who do not appreciate being patronised, hence this discussion.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 21:19 UTC (Wed) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
It is not *patronizing* to people who actually *want* to run free software. It is convenience and a feature. If you want to run non-free software, you have tons of options. Why does it bother you so much that there is a subset of the community that wants to have things 100% free and doesn't even want a suggestion of non-free software? Why not just let us do that without all the attacks?
Suggesting that the FSF, of all organizations, is trying to keep people ignorant is ridiculous. It would be hard to come up with an organization that has made people more aware of these issues than anyone else.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 21:43 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Why does it bother you so much that there is a subset of the community that wants to have things 100% free and doesn't even want a suggestion of non-free software? Why not just let us do that without all the attacks? The last time I checked it was the FSFLA which started »the attacks« by taking the Linux kernel developers to task for producing »free bait« software. If the FSFLA wants to distribute a Linux kernel that is »free« enough for them to use then I'm all in favour. This is what free software is about, after all. However, I'll personally stick to the Debian-provided kernel, which is good enough for me, and I'll not have the FSFLA chide me for not pursuing the correct kind of freedom, thank you very much. Suggesting that the FSF, of all organizations, is trying to keep people ignorant is ridiculous. It would be hard to come up with an organization that has made people more aware of these issues than anyone else. You will have to explain to me again how not offering to install the Flash plugin in a browser at all makes people more aware of the issues behind Flash.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 21:54 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]
Let me see... First you (FSFLA) comes with an announcement that attacks the Linux developers for not buying into your narrow interpretation of freedom, and when someone responds critically, you whine "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!".
Do you really expect to be part of any rational conversation?
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 22:31 UTC (Wed) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
> First you (FSFLA) comes with an announcement...
I'm the FSFLA? I came with an announcement? How do you make that out? I'm not in it nor have I ever been a member. I don't think I'm even in the FSF, for that matter. But I appreciate what both are doing and have done.
> Do you really expect to be part of any rational conversation?
Not anymore. You can't even identify who you are talking to.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 10, 2010 22:33 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]
Sorry, my bad. You just seem to half the writing on FSFLA's behalf.
[OT] Flash plugin (was: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core") Posted Nov 10, 2010 22:27 UTC (Wed) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
> Maybe we would all be better off if everyone had simply refused to go for Flash when it was new.
People never made that choice (installing or not Flash). IIRC, it came bundled with Netscape, back when everyone used Netscape. Most people do not even know what a plugin is.
|
|||||||||||||