4 ms·

HURD is does not have a stable release. It's unlikely to even boot on real hardware, which is why they have QEMU images. I don't know what screenshots of a kern

by unmole 3y ago

HURD is does not have a stable release. It's unlikely to even boot on real hardware, which is why they have QEMU images. I don't know what screenshots of a kernel would look like. Generalising this to GNU and the FSF is daft. Claiming this somehow shows their irrelevance is even more so.

Nextgrid 3y ago
> Generalising this to GNU and the FSF is daft I disagree - this isn't some isolated example, this pattern is seen across many other GUN, FSF and other free as in freedom projects. A lot of free as in freedom projects are completely out of touch with the modern world and waste their (already thin) resources on irrelevant, half-baked projects furthering some ideology rather than practical projects that would bring freedom (even if incomplete) to more people. Software (or hardware) should be considered a means to an end, with freedom being a bonus. But for a lot of free as in freedom projects, the "freedom" is the key with the actual utility of the artifact being an afterthought (as a result it doesn't catch on, because nobody cares how free the thing is if it's useless or unusable in practice).
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  You're using "free as in freedom" very deliberately here... Probably to pretend you're not also talking about open source. But you are, because there's essentially no distinction in most cases. But hopefully you don't mean to say that most open source software is practically useless, because that would be pretty silly, right? So what exactly are you saying? That there are very niche open source projects around? Sure, but that's fine. There's also open source code that runs on almost literally everything though, some of it even from the GNU project. There's also proprietary software that is incredibly niche and only a small handful of people would know what to do with it or have even heard of. So what? Name some examples, I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    I am using that expression to separate them from the broader Open Source movement. I do think there is a major difference between general open-source and GNU/FSF "free as in freedom" ideology. I see the broader open source movement as "hey I made this thing to get stuff done, oh btw it's open source under a permissive license so feel free to take it/improve it". GNU/FSF is more like "here's a list of reasons why the way you do your computing is wrong, the right way is to go back to the dark ages of computing, oh and we have some half-baked software to help with that - and don't you dare use that other open-source thing over there, it's not free enough". > Name some examples The hundreds of different Linux distributions, none of which can match the stability, consistency and user-experience of proprietary OSes even from a decade ago? Imagine the collective effort that has been wasted reinventing the wheel and bikeshedding. The PinePhone, which despite there being a permissively-licensed, battle-tested mobile userspace (Android), would rather try to adapt a desktop-focused userspace to it (and the effort is obviously spread across multiple distros, because why wouldn't it?), and as a result you have a device for sale today that's less usable than a PocketPC from 2003. The whole "Respects Your Freedom" list from the FSF (https://ryf.fsf.org/index.php/ https://ryf.fsf.org/index.php/), which looks like a low-budget computer parts catalog from a decade ago, or their absurd position against CPU microcode updates (https://ariadne.space/2022/01/22/the-fsfs-relationship-with-firmware-is-harmful-to-free-software-users/ https://ariadne.space/2022/01/22/the-fsfs-relationship-with-...)? The RYF thing in practice just seems like a major blow to whatever credibility they have left (are they really not understanding that nobody in 2023 cares about mostly decades-old generic computer parts?), and they'd be better off scrubbing every mention of it and pretend it never happened. I could go on and on. To recap, I think GNU/FSF is pushing some impractical and unrealistic ideology that is ultimately harmful as it wastes effort that could instead be directed to provide practical and pragmatic solutions that offer software freedom, even if partial (which is still better than no freedom at all).
- unmole 3y ago
  The bulk of the work done for such free as in freedom projects is by unpaid volunteers. The only resources being expended are their own time and effort. Even if the work doesn't cater to the tastes of the general populace, there is nothing wasted. Unless you think someone making art for themselves or baking cookies for their friends is also wasting resources.

by unmole 3y ago

Nextgrid 3y ago

> Generalising this to GNU and the FSF is daft I disagree - this isn't some isolated example, this pattern is seen across many other GUN, FSF and other free as in freedom projects. A lot of free as in freedom projects are completely out of touch with the modern world and waste their (already thin) resources on irrelevant, half-baked projects furthering some ideology rather than practical projects that would bring freedom (even if incomplete) to more people. Software (or hardware) should be considered a means to an end, with freedom being a bonus. But for a lot of free as in freedom projects, the "freedom" is the key with the actual utility of the artifact being an afterthought (as a result it doesn't catch on, because nobody cares how free the thing is if it's useless or unusable in practice).

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
You're using "free as in freedom" very deliberately here... Probably to pretend you're not also talking about open source. But you are, because there's essentially no distinction in most cases. But hopefully you don't mean to say that most open source software is practically useless, because that would be pretty silly, right? So what exactly are you saying? That there are very niche open source projects around? Sure, but that's fine. There's also open source code that runs on almost literally everything though, some of it even from the GNU project. There's also proprietary software that is incredibly niche and only a small handful of people would know what to do with it or have even heard of. So what? Name some examples, I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  I am using that expression to separate them from the broader Open Source movement. I do think there is a major difference between general open-source and GNU/FSF "free as in freedom" ideology. I see the broader open source movement as "hey I made this thing to get stuff done, oh btw it's open source under a permissive license so feel free to take it/improve it". GNU/FSF is more like "here's a list of reasons why the way you do your computing is wrong, the right way is to go back to the dark ages of computing, oh and we have some half-baked software to help with that - and don't you dare use that other open-source thing over there, it's not free enough". > Name some examples The hundreds of different Linux distributions, none of which can match the stability, consistency and user-experience of proprietary OSes even from a decade ago? Imagine the collective effort that has been wasted reinventing the wheel and bikeshedding. The PinePhone, which despite there being a permissively-licensed, battle-tested mobile userspace (Android), would rather try to adapt a desktop-focused userspace to it (and the effort is obviously spread across multiple distros, because why wouldn't it?), and as a result you have a device for sale today that's less usable than a PocketPC from 2003. The whole "Respects Your Freedom" list from the FSF (https://ryf.fsf.org/index.php/ https://ryf.fsf.org/index.php/), which looks like a low-budget computer parts catalog from a decade ago, or their absurd position against CPU microcode updates (https://ariadne.space/2022/01/22/the-fsfs-relationship-with-firmware-is-harmful-to-free-software-users/ https://ariadne.space/2022/01/22/the-fsfs-relationship-with-...)? The RYF thing in practice just seems like a major blow to whatever credibility they have left (are they really not understanding that nobody in 2023 cares about mostly decades-old generic computer parts?), and they'd be better off scrubbing every mention of it and pretend it never happened. I could go on and on. To recap, I think GNU/FSF is pushing some impractical and unrealistic ideology that is ultimately harmful as it wastes effort that could instead be directed to provide practical and pragmatic solutions that offer software freedom, even if partial (which is still better than no freedom at all).
unmole 3y ago
The bulk of the work done for such free as in freedom projects is by unpaid volunteers. The only resources being expended are their own time and effort. Even if the work doesn't cater to the tastes of the general populace, there is nothing wasted. Unless you think someone making art for themselves or baking cookies for their friends is also wasting resources.