r283492

8 ms·

1.
by r283492 11mo ago
And FSF has a history of creating important OS level software.
2.
by r283492 11mo ago
> the results can hopefully be used by non-Android [GNU/]Linux distros That was stated as a goal at the FSF 40 event, videos of which should be online in the next few days.
3.
by r283492 11mo ago
As the first project FSF has launched in years with a current budget of one developer I expect they will be happy to spend new donations on further funding for it. However, it is very uncommon for a nonprofit to have a separate fund for a p
4.
by r283492 4y ago
Proprietary software is a societal ill, like spyware is. Getting people to understand that will be similar to when societies have figured out other things are wrong, like child labor is wrong. While proprietary software runs rampant, certai
5.
by r283492 5y ago
The government arguments against encryption are so ridiculous, but we need articulate explanations like this to help refute them. They remind me of things like: if you don't vote to ban driving, you must want children to die. After all
6.
by r283492 5y ago
> Making it inaccessible to tinkering is strictly worse for the user in all respects. "all respects" is wrong. It also makes it so the proprietary developer can't say "here is a new version, but you must agree to some
7.
by r283492 5y ago
If you try to pin down someone on the fly who is publicly advocating for something on what exceptions are ok, expect them to be stubborn. But there is a lot of pragmatism at work. It's why we have the LGPL, GPL, and AGPL. https:/
8.
by r283492 5y ago
> ... but you can modify the base version. There is some read-only memory that contains the base version. It is executed on boot. You can tell the cpu to run a different version by pointing it to a different version during the boot proce
9.
by r283492 5y ago
> To do my job and boot my laptop nonguix is required but not even allowed to talk about it with the OS it intends to support, is not something I can agree with The OS isn't a person. The OS has online discussion forums and the peop
10.
by r283492 5y ago
Yes. Pinebook pro has one or more other blobs and they are for more significant functionality.
11.
by r283492 5y ago
> You already accepted it when you bought the CPU and it came with the base version. No, that is a version you can't physically modify. The other version is one you can't modify because of it's license and signature verifi
12.
by r283492 5y ago
About the microcode: the argument is basically "It is good nonfree software, just give up and accept it." Sorry? This is FSF. And no, it is not always good: https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/21/int
13.
by r283492 5y ago
It has one tiny blob for ram initialization, people are looking into removing it. It may become RYF certified. Freedom wise, it is the best modern laptop.
14.
by r283492 5y ago
The malicious/abusive parts of nonfree software are almost always tied to it's updatability. Avoiding updatable nonfree software prevents users from entering into an abusive relationship with a nonfree software vendor. https:&#x2
15.
by r283492 5y ago
And if free software existed for any of those chips, FSF would require it. If there is any room for consistency in the criteria, it would be to deal with the fact that some of the computers have less nonfree firmware than others. Eg: the ra
16.
by r283492 5y ago
> Not when you can literally flash these devices from scratch (DFU mode) using a public OS image from Apple. That guarantees any preinstalled backdoors go away, since it's a complete wipe (you can do this from a Linux machine, by th
17.
by r283492 5y ago
Unpublished CLA is a no go. I assume the CLA says you can distribute my code under a proprietary license. Nope, nope, nope. Fix that, then I'll take a look.
18.
by r283492 5y ago
Look, its all very simple, "firmware that is not normally changed is ethically equivalent to circuits" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/applying-free-sw-criteria.htm... Ya, monitors and hard drives all have ver
19.
by r283492 5y ago
> only they can theoretically (though as I said, in practice detectably) backdoor your laptop No, no no. This is wrong. You don't need a nested hypervisor to make an undetectable backdoor. If you you audit all network traffic from a
20.
by r283492 5y ago
> the BS the FSF spits out The whole article didn't mention even one concrete thing the FSF has said wrong, it just slanders them several times. No wonder it says to the FSF "don't bother to contact me."
21.
by r283492 5y ago
> Torvalds chose method 1; Huh? Torvalds never intended to create an operating system, just a kernel, and that is true to this day.
22.
by r283492 5y ago
The fact that the post does not link to https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html , makes it immediately suspect. That is a necessary resource to consult when talking about the GNU/Linux name.
23.
by r283492 5y ago
You can do an equivalent thing on your own machine with https://github.com/rss2email/rss2email
24.
by r283492 5y ago
> Electron was not considered Free Software by the Free Software Foundation. That is not true. The link shows that a volunteer on the free software directory labeled it as nonfree at one point and later it was changed. However, the FSF d
25.
by r283492 5y ago
I think you are wrong: https://vscodium.com/