5 ms·

I really appreciate GNU keeping their ground. We need them to keep the Overton window correctly framed. Nonfree drivers are not OK. Nonfree BIOS/EFI programs

I really appreciate GNU keeping their ground. We need them to keep the Overton window correctly framed. Nonfree drivers are not OK. Nonfree BIOS/EFI programs are not OK. Nonfree kernel blobs are not OK. We may use them out of necessity and pragmatism (some nonfree software is better than 100% nonfree software! an Arch user still has more intact freedoms than a Windows user), but we should still reject them ideologically and remember that they are tolerated but not accepted.

agiacalone 4y ago
Same. Let the GNU fight this fight and we benefit. It's about choice.
- lanstin 4y ago
  Even if we don't read the screeds or have to worry about it.
rickydroll 4y ago
Specialized use or small audience or should be accommodated. I'm specifically thinking in terms of handicap accessibility. I need speech recognition in order to work effectively. The only good speech recognition environment for people with disabilities is Dragon on Windows. Everything else simply converts speech to text. I need something converts speech to tax then digs into text boxes and GUIs to enable editing and recognition corrections by speech. The same also applies to copilot. I've trained myself to give it prompts to generate code that matches what I would've generated by hand years ago. But without copilot, I wouldn't program. Simply not practical.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tedunangst 4y ago
Why do you continue to use HN, which contains URLs to nonfree software?
- fsflover 4y ago
  A user has the right to use non-free software if they want. A company should not force anyone to use non-free software: it's unethical.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    > A company should not force anyone to use non-free software: it's unethical. Why is it unethical? Would it be unethical to be required to use an entirely mechanical machine that was still covered by patents or trade secrets?
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      You’re replying to someone named “fsflover”. This is a bit like trying to convince someone named “maolover” that capitalism has some advantages. The idea that non-free software is unethical and should be abolished is the bedrock of all of the FSF’s philosophy, and is held almost as a religious view for RMS and his adherents.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Not sure what their nick is supposed to mean. And I'm more interested in understanding why they feel so strongly, and whether their view extends elsewhere, than trying to change their mind.
      - fsflover 4y ago
        Religion is completely unnecessary here. It can be purely practical. By relying on nonfree software you loose your possibility to escape walled gardens (Apple), could be forced to pay more for support, or can't get any support at all (some Android phones, old Apple phones) and so on.
    - fsflover 4y ago
      It's unethical, because the developers of nonfree software have too much power over the user. They create an artificial monopoly, where nobody except them can provide support in case something goes wrong. Thanks to this monopoly, for example, you have to buy a new Android phone every two years. All these questions are answered in book "Free Software, Free Society" (with better explanations than I can give). > mechanical machine that was still covered by patents or trade secrets I would say, yes, it would be unethical, too.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Some of these distros are not approved because they talk about or make it too easy to acquire nonfree software.
opportune 4y ago
What if the bios, drivers, and blobs were source-available? Obviously a true free license is preferable but I can see why commercial vendors are hesitant to allow anybody to make whatever changes they want. From what I understand the GNU project would still reject that on ideological grounds even if it addressed a lot of the theoretical problems (running code where you have no way of knowing what it’s doing)
- pydry 4y ago
  >commercial vendors are hesitant to allow anybody to make whatever changes they want Why? If a vendor sells a fingerprint scanner or something why do they need the driver to be closed source? Why does somebody tweaking the source bother them? I've never really understood this. Sure, Microsoft word needs to be closed source but why a driver?
  - hakfoo 4y ago
    I always figured a lot of it is covering over garbage hardware in software. Whatever "clever" feature it had doesn't actually work and they fake it in the drivers, or they're having to patch around a maze of different buggy hardware revisions. Nobody wants to show the world how that sausage is made.
    - ye-olde-sysrq 4y ago
      I think a lot of it is also just a general amount of fear for (from the companys perspective) no benefit. There's a lot of fear that if the code is visible, you could be sued for its contents or it could be otherwise used against you in court, competitors could "steal" your effort, etc. Plus there's just a lot of belief in the nonfree circles that the software freedom movement is just religious zealot hippies who think software should never be paid for and that microsoft programmers should work for free and starve, and that anyone who does develop novel software should have it immediately ripped off and copied by competitors and make no money because capitalism is bad. (I'm being a bit hyperbolic but not much.)
- ye-olde-sysrq 4y ago

agiacalone 4y ago

Same. Let the GNU fight this fight and we benefit. It's about choice.

lanstin 4y ago
Even if we don't read the screeds or have to worry about it.

rickydroll 4y ago

Specialized use or small audience or should be accommodated. I'm specifically thinking in terms of handicap accessibility. I need speech recognition in order to work effectively. The only good speech recognition environment for people with disabilities is Dragon on Windows. Everything else simply converts speech to text. I need something converts speech to tax then digs into text boxes and GUIs to enable editing and recognition corrections by speech. The same also applies to copilot. I've trained myself to give it prompts to generate code that matches what I would've generated by hand years ago. But without copilot, I wouldn't program. Simply not practical.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tedunangst 4y ago

Why do you continue to use HN, which contains URLs to nonfree software?

fsflover 4y ago
A user has the right to use non-free software if they want. A company should not force anyone to use non-free software: it's unethical.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  > A company should not force anyone to use non-free software: it's unethical. Why is it unethical? Would it be unethical to be required to use an entirely mechanical machine that was still covered by patents or trade secrets?
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    You’re replying to someone named “fsflover”. This is a bit like trying to convince someone named “maolover” that capitalism has some advantages. The idea that non-free software is unethical and should be abolished is the bedrock of all of the FSF’s philosophy, and is held almost as a religious view for RMS and his adherents.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Not sure what their nick is supposed to mean. And I'm more interested in understanding why they feel so strongly, and whether their view extends elsewhere, than trying to change their mind.
    - fsflover 4y ago
      Religion is completely unnecessary here. It can be purely practical. By relying on nonfree software you loose your possibility to escape walled gardens (Apple), could be forced to pay more for support, or can't get any support at all (some Android phones, old Apple phones) and so on.
  - fsflover 4y ago
    It's unethical, because the developers of nonfree software have too much power over the user. They create an artificial monopoly, where nobody except them can provide support in case something goes wrong. Thanks to this monopoly, for example, you have to buy a new Android phone every two years. All these questions are answered in book "Free Software, Free Society" (with better explanations than I can give). > mechanical machine that was still covered by patents or trade secrets I would say, yes, it would be unethical, too.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Some of these distros are not approved because they talk about or make it too easy to acquire nonfree software.

opportune 4y ago

What if the bios, drivers, and blobs were source-available? Obviously a true free license is preferable but I can see why commercial vendors are hesitant to allow anybody to make whatever changes they want. From what I understand the GNU project would still reject that on ideological grounds even if it addressed a lot of the theoretical problems (running code where you have no way of knowing what it’s doing)

pydry 4y ago
>commercial vendors are hesitant to allow anybody to make whatever changes they want Why? If a vendor sells a fingerprint scanner or something why do they need the driver to be closed source? Why does somebody tweaking the source bother them? I've never really understood this. Sure, Microsoft word needs to be closed source but why a driver?
- hakfoo 4y ago
  I always figured a lot of it is covering over garbage hardware in software. Whatever "clever" feature it had doesn't actually work and they fake it in the drivers, or they're having to patch around a maze of different buggy hardware revisions. Nobody wants to show the world how that sausage is made.
  - ye-olde-sysrq 4y ago
    I think a lot of it is also just a general amount of fear for (from the companys perspective) no benefit. There's a lot of fear that if the code is visible, you could be sued for its contents or it could be otherwise used against you in court, competitors could "steal" your effort, etc. Plus there's just a lot of belief in the nonfree circles that the software freedom movement is just religious zealot hippies who think software should never be paid for and that microsoft programmers should work for free and starve, and that anyone who does develop novel software should have it immediately ripped off and copied by competitors and make no money because capitalism is bad. (I'm being a bit hyperbolic but not much.)
ye-olde-sysrq 4y ago