>With regards to firmware, the FSF believes that 2 is better than 1. That is stupid. How do you not see that? your comparison with MS is ridiculous. FSF softwa

>With regards to firmware, the FSF believes that 2 is better than 1. That is stupid. How do you not see that? your comparison with MS is ridiculous. FSF software is open. do with their software what you like. FSF believes it should not help you with 1 or 2 due to its principles, and that is OK. why wouldnt it be? the source is there so help yourself if you really want something that they are not willing to help you with (even if they often do apparalently) anyway this whole exchange is becoming tyring to me. a lot of these comments by people seem to be more about vaging a crusade against FSF than it is about discussing issues in good faith. its somewhat dissapointing, esspecially since i only just realised who marcan is. as far as i am concerned, i am completely unconvinced by marcan and co that FSF is a deceptive organisation and that their work is somehow bad for free software. quite the opposite, i am happy that they exist. i say this simply as a spectator. to me the following comment on their website just clearly shows that they are aware that products they certify run nonfree code: "If and when free software becomes available for use on a certain secondary processor, we will expect certified products to adopt it within a reasonable period of time. This can be done in the next model of the product, if there is a new model within a reasonable period of time. If this is not done, we will eventually withdraw the certification" (source given elsewhere in the exchanges) i do not feel deceived in the slightest. if deception is happening it seems to be regarding FSF's position. take care