3 ms·
Fedora, by providing blobs, promotes the usage of non-free software. If you want those blobs you should have to seek them out yourself, your provider should not
by zanny 13y ago
Fedora, by providing blobs, promotes the usage of non-free software. If you want those blobs you should have to seek them out yourself, your provider should not saddle you with potential ignorance to you running software no one can audit. If your computer can't run without binary blobs, yet you are a free software proponent, you should not want to use that computer because the manufacturer is taking away your freedom to use the device you purchased how you want.
Though that gets into the mess that is open EE technical documents on firmware, chipsets, mainboards, circuit layouts, etc - pretty much none of which exist, because so few companies offer them, it is nigh impossible to get an open platform.
Which sucks, and is something I'd throw money at to see fixed.
- Karunamon 13y ago>If you want those blobs you should have to seek them out yourself Untenable position. A user should not be forced to jump through hoops to make their hardware work just for what is essentially an ideological reason (and indeed, an average user would rightly reject such software.) >If your computer can't run without binary blobs, yet you are a free software proponent If the goal of the FSF is to make people care about the free-ness of their operating system, they could certainly go about it a better way. The problem with the whole "approval" thing is that the very name of the organization combined with that action is misleading. Example, if I ran a group called the Cool Software Foundation and maintain a list of cool software, and I made it a point to single out your $application as not being approved, that carries the connotation that your app is not cool. s/cool/free or any other objective adjective. In other words, the distro itself very much is free software, and the FSF by their dogmatism is being misleading. I'm with BSD on this one.