Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Again what it means in practice should be discussed but basically any reasonable person including you and anyone with your level of expertise should be able to say honestly that, yes indeed this computer is under full control of the owner and the owner only. It has no backdoor or ability to be remotely updated without the owner intention. That, unfortunately, is impossible for silicon platforms. Documentation can't…
I do not know if you ever lived under dictatorship but the most popular argument of dictatorship is 'There are Nuances' , 'Be wise, nothing is absolute' and 'Freedom is not the answer'. I would not wish to blame you for anything because I value your efforts and the worst thing I could assume: it's your honest mistake. Of course nothing is absolute but it doesn't mean that we should be that wise to miss the main point…
Trisquel GNU/Linux
81–86 of 86 posts
Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Again what it means in practice should be discussed but basically any reasonable person including you and anyone with your level of expertise should be able to say honestly that, yes indeed this computer is under full control of the owner and the owner only. It has no backdoor or ability to be remotely updated without the owner intention. That, unfortunately, is impossible for silicon platforms. Documentation can't…
I do not know if you ever lived under dictatorship but the most popular argument of dictatorship is 'There are Nuances' , 'Be wise, nothing is absolute' and 'Freedom is not the answer'. I would not wish to blame you for anything because I value your efforts and the worst thing I could assume: it's your honest mistake. Of course nothing is absolute but it doesn't mean that we should be that wise to miss the main point…
> naive children
If you're going to end with ad hominem attacks, you don't deserve it. You've made it clear to everyone here what kind of person you are, and I shouldn't be wasting my time replying.
(Also, your comment history suggests you own an M1 Air since you were commenting about PWM flicker and QEMU VMs... so maybe check out a mirror before insulting people who choose to buy these machines)
Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying non-GPL open source licenses (Apache, MPL2, MIT) aren't FOSS? That seems like a pretty extreme position.
> That seems like a pretty extreme position. I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL). Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end use…
FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. And there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's.
Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?). No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.
Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not know if you ever lived under dictatorship but the most popular argument of dictatorship is 'There are Nuances' , 'Be wise, nothing is absolute' and 'Freedom is not the answer'. I would not wish to blame you for anything because I value your efforts and the worst thing I could assume: it's your honest mistake. Of course nothing is absolute but it doesn't mean that we should be that wise to miss the main point…
I had typed up a full point by point reply, but honestly, > naive children If you're going to end with ad hominem attacks, you don't deserve it. You've made it clear to everyone here what kind of person you are, and I shouldn't be wasting my time replying. (Also, your comment history suggests you own an M1 Air since you were commenting about PWM flicker and QEMU VMs... so maybe check out a mirror before insulting peo…
>If you're going to end with ad hominem attacks, you don't deserve it.
No I am not going to end with any attacks. I am trying to avoid any attacks and trying to argue for the topic in general. This is my internal guideline and if by some reason I did deviate from it I apologize because this is not my intention.
> you don't deserve it. You've made it clear to everyone here what kind of person you are, and I shouldn't be wasting my time replying.
Who deserves what in your perspective of the world it is of course for you to decide for yourself. Still, with all respect, I think you went there too much personal and I think it would be certain exaggeration to suggest that you can know what kind of person I am and I do not understand what makes you think you are entitled to speak for others here. What kind of person I am or not doesn't really even matter here. When you answer me you are not only answering to me personally. It is the general point that matter so consider sharing something you already typed for the sake of others if my apology wasn't enough.
As to your criticism I am not perfect and make mistakes but I do check my mirror constantly so I hope we can avoid certain 'too early' conclusions that might be incorrect. If there are things other then those two words please point to them in a respectful manner.
You've suggested that my position is an absolutist position and I do not see absolutism in it. You have baby or you don't. If they control computer then they do. Nuances come after that. How much of it you accept for the moment is a separate question. I never been accused for absolutism before. I do not know why you suggest it as you can well see it by yourself that I do compromise and buy something like M1 because at the moment according even to your point it might be not the worse compromise. So perhaps suggestion of absolutism for simple wish to have own computer under own control is misplaced.
In general I simply wish computer that I fully control . I do not need 'safety' provided by someone unfamiliar to me and I wish to avoid situation where I have to choose only between bad options non of which deliver what I need. I hope you can see some logic behind this point.
I have nothing to do with FSF by the way so please take it into account because it's also incorrect to put me in the same camp with them (at least so far). I share some of their views just as I can share some of your views when they are well grounded. For instance if you claim that FSF standards for the hardware aren't enough nor consistent I can see your point. It's hard to say you are correct or not it still needs some thinking about it and this is what it's all about. To hear the point and to think about it. I have nothing against you personally. If I wish to insult or attack I do it with very different tone and then it's hard to confuse with something else so there is no need to look for insults in other places when I am simply trying to express certain point of view as clear as I can.I hope I didn't waste my time explaining all of this to you.
With all that said and understanding your emotion I apologize for those two words if they delivered wrong message. Still I think staying on the subject and delivering your points was more important than getting personal and showing disrespect. I hope you can come back to the points and put personal things and some incorrect suggestions aside.
Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That seems like a pretty extreme position. I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL). Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end use…
I have to tell you -- being patronized by a GPL advocate isn't a new or unusual experience for me, but, I'm still amazed people believe this is the way to win converts. FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. And there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's. Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?). No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% own…
If you are aware of the definition, and are conflating the terms on purpose to make a statement or something, the derailing of this conversation is on your for being deliberately confusing.
> there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's.
Sure, but since the conversation is about the FSF, I think it's obvious that I'm talking about the FSF's definition of the term "freedom" (especially since I linked to it)
> Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?)
Did you actually read what I wrote? I wasn't introducing you to Android, I was using it as an example to highlight the consequences of using a non-free license on a project. Something I felt would be helpful since you didn't seem to be aware of the FSF's definition of free software.
> No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman" is a reasonable view of the history.
Ok, fine, maybe take a 9 or two off the end.
Re: Trisquel GNU/Linux
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to tell you -- being patronized by a GPL advocate isn't a new or unusual experience for me, but, I'm still amazed people believe this is the way to win converts. FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. And there are many views about that freedom. Not just Mr. Stallman's. Yes, I'm aware of Android (ask yourself -- where are we having this discussion?). No, I don't think "The tech industry would be 99.999% own…
How am I being patronizing? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're just confused about the definition of some terminology that people commonly get confused about. If you are aware of the definition, and are conflating the terms on purpose to make a statement or something, the derailing of this conversation is on your for being deliberately confusing. > there are many views about that freedom. Not…