Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FSF announces Librephone project

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 669 posts

Re: FSF announces Librephone project

#431

Post by fsflover »

supermatt wrote: post #395
fsflover wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589873

Thats clearly not what the OP is suggesting as per "Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways?". Both cases are android. /e/OS is not librephone. There's little point in "partnering" with postmarketOS, because the project is literally about clean room reversing the proprietary blobs found in android devices: https://librephone.fsf.org/site/ - there are no…

> there are no commercial phones using postmarketOS with blobs to reverse engineer

This is false: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-li...

See also my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589096

Re: FSF announces Librephone project

#432

Post by gessha »

rjsw wrote: post #413
fsflover wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are all commenters on HN ignoring the only smartphone running an FSF-endorsed [0] operating system, Librem 5, and only list everything else? I just can't get it. Even the FSF themselves didn't mention it or provided any reasoning for choosing a Google-controlled operating system - despite recommending Librem 5 earlier [1]. What am I missing? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641 [1] https://www.fsf.or…

We know that you will post something about Librem 5 so there is no need for anyone else to do it.

It’s amusing to me that whenever I see a submission about Linux phones, I start looking for the obligatory @fsflover comment.

No bad feelings, fsflover, keep up the good work. I also can’t wait to post on here from a libre phone.

Re: FSF announces Librephone project

#434

Post by soulofmischief »

sunshine-o wrote: post #284
cookiengineer wrote: post #265

Why can't they just partner with postmarketOS here? Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways? Why do we have to have a Librephone project now instead of partnering with say, Fairphone and the Pine64 people? Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. The only thing that comes close to this is GrapheneOS, LineageOS, and postmark…

[flagged]

This post was fine up until you decided to be sexist for no reason. If you're using "feminine" as an insult, professing "obvious" connotations, you need to reflect on why you have these associations.

Re: FSF announces Librephone project

#435

Post by masfuerte »

nabla9 wrote: post #390
ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FSF is now under the leadership of a "Bachelor of Arts degree in Media and Culture and a Master of Arts in the Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image" who probably hasn't written a line of code. This is an exceptionally poor argument. 1. Coders are biased and often not aligned with users whose rights FSF is there to protect. Just look at any OSS vs FS discussion on this site to see examples. 2. Your…

In free software those who write code decide what is done and nobody else matters in the end.

A great deal of free software is developed by employees. Except in the most reductive sense (the employees could all quit) the decisions are made by the employers.

In this instance John Gilmore is funding the work. He's not doing it himself.

Re: FSF announces Librephone project

#436

Post by soulofmischief »

lenkite wrote: post #326
sunshine-o wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It is how the times are nowadays. You don't get the CEO throne of any org without chest-thumping your social justice initiatives. The FSF is merely following fully up2date standard operational procedures of Western civilization. How can you blame them for following the de-facto standards ? Praise the Heavens that at-least 3/10 staff are coders. That is a far better ratio than most NGOs.

It's time you stop blaming social justice initiatives for your own failures. The projection is clear.

It's wonderful that you've been privileged enough to not need to understand the point of "social justice", but it's not a bogeyman preventing you from being a leader.

Re: FSF announces Librephone project

#437

Post by ethbr1 »

cbeach wrote: post #429
sunshine-o wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> every time one of those foundations announce a "non coding" woman as their new leader, if you read between the lines, it is because they need to be more "ESG" That might explain why the Scala Center (which oversees the Scala language) has a young political sciences grad as its executive director. She has zero commercial or academic experience in Scala. And this is how she behaves at conferences: https://x.com/jdego…

Causation does not imply correlation.

That there are non-technical leaders who lose the thread does not mean that leaders lose the thread because they're non-technical.

There are plenty of technical leaders who have also gone off on personal tangents and vendettas!

Maybe a more accurate appraisal would be 'some people suck at a job, and it's unfortunately difficult to dislodge a bad leader anywhere'.

Re: FSF announces Librephone project

#438

Post by soulofmischief »

sunshine-o wrote: post #305
padjo wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Women are more than seductresses. This is an apalling line of reasoning. There are a lot of issues to hate in our industry, and you lose all credibility by attempting to tie these issues to women.

Re: FSF announces Librephone project

#440

Post by cbeach »

darkwater wrote: post #349
zo1 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine because women are under-represented in this field, so naturally we have to weight gender over qualifications. It's just the way things are. I wish it wasn't and qualifications/ability played a 100% part in these decisions.

> I would imagine because women are under-represented in this field, So the ones in the field have passed a higher barrier and pressure and are more qualified than the p80 male. This could be another spin on the topic ;)

You're assuming the Left stayed out of technology, and we still run a meritocracy.
Post reply on HN