Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 20-Jan-2025 22:35:32 JST 翠星石

   • Matthew Fennell
   @matthew >Yet, the existence of a free alternative
   The whole idea is that the free software is a free replacement to all proprietary software, not a mere alternative to it.
   
   >If you were to switch a non-technical user’s web browser for Firefox
   Unfortunately, firefox isn't exactly free software, although there are free forks like Abrowser and GNU icecat.
   
   
   I don't really get the concept of an "open protocol" - I personally would frame it as free protocols, that are documented and which can simply be implemented vs undocumented malicious proprietary ones, that can be implemented, but such is an act of difficult reverse engineering, with all work turning to dust if the protocol is changed.
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Fennell (matthew@social.fennell.dev)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 17:29:20 JST Matthew Fennell

     in reply to

     • Gabe

     @gabriel

     > You're saying |matrix| isn't it? :trollface:

     😁 I have my personal preferences, but I'd definitely take Matrix over the status quo today!

   • Embed this notice
     Gabe (gabriel@mk.gabe.rocks)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 17:29:21 JST Gabe

     • Matthew Fennell

     @matthew@social.fennell.dev
     You're saying |matrix| isn't it? :trollface:
     I wholeheartedly agree with your points though.By pushing for the adoption of open protocols in areas where they are not widespread, we can provide a level playing field on which free software can compete and succeed. This will allow the software in the “almost impossible to replace” bucket to become “possible but painful” at the very least.💯 but no easy task!

     MortSinyx likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Fennell (matthew@social.fennell.dev)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 18:02:31 JST Matthew Fennell

     in reply to

     • :suya:
     • david :_biflag:

     @david @newt heh, thanks for letting me know! I'll do it properly tonight when I get back tonight 🙂

   • Embed this notice
     david :_biflag: (david@pl.dav1d.lol)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 18:02:32 JST david :_biflag:

     • Matthew Fennell
     @matthew I think ur website is broken lol
   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Fennell (matthew@social.fennell.dev)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Jan-2025 04:59:39 JST Matthew Fennell

     in reply to

     @Suiseiseki thanks for reading my post!

     > The whole idea is that the free software is a free replacement to all proprietary software, not a mere alternative to it.

     For you and I, who are already committed, absolutely! But, for people getting started on the freedom ladder, I think they will evaluate each piece of software on a case by case basis. Once they have a taste of Free Software, and it (hopefully) works well for them, I feel it becomes easier to sell the philosophical side of things.

   • Embed this notice
     Matthew Fennell (matthew@social.fennell.dev)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Jan-2025 05:04:26 JST Matthew Fennell

     in reply to

     @Suiseiseki about Firefox: I get what you're saying, but it's in Debian's main repositories, that's good enough for me :)

     As for "open protocol", I think we are talking about the same thing! I completely agree with your description, the most important things for me are that anyone can implement the protocol, anyone can join the network without asking for permission, and there is a balance of power so that many different parties are forming the protocol.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 29-Jan-2025 16:02:07 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Shakil Akhtar 🇸🇦 🇵🇸
     @shakil_tcs - Mozilla uses trademark restrictions on the firefox logo to forbid any sort of sale/bundling for payment of the unmodified software, even if it is made clear that what is being sold is unmodified firefox, denying freedom 2 in some cases (although it is reasonable to require that a logo is removed for resale of modified software provided that changing the logo is trivial).
     - Firefox by default recommends in the "new tab" page several websites full of malicious proprietary JavaScript and if the user clicks on any of them, firefox automatically and silently executes such malicious software.
     - Firefox implements "Encrypted Media Extensions" digital handcuffs and doesn't adequately advise the user what is being done - it just pops up a box that says to play the video on the page, or not.
     - Google is the default search engine and google search no longer works without malicious proprietary JavaScript.
     - Firefox recommends proprietary extensions without saying they are proprietary.
     - There is default spying, refereed to as "analytics".
     - Which websites the user visits is reported to google via "google safebrowing".
     
     Some of these issues alone don't make software proprietary, but the combination of all of these clearly make firefox proprietary software.
     
     As always, when there is free source code, someone goes and takes any antifeatures out and there are free soft-forks like GNU icecat, Abrowser and Tor Browser.
   • Embed this notice
     Shakil Akhtar 🇸🇦 🇵🇸 (shakil_tcs@mstdn.starnix.network)'s status on Wednesday, 29-Jan-2025 16:02:08 JST Shakil Akhtar 🇸🇦 🇵🇸

     in reply to

     • Matthew Fennell

     @Suiseiseki @matthew Why isn't firefox free software?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 29-Jan-2025 19:46:45 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Pi_rat
     @Pi_rat The base format is a free format, with documentation and there are several fully free pdf implementations, so pdf is a fine format.
     
     adobe of course has added a bunch of proprietary extensions, some of which has been reverse engineered.
     
     
     A potential issue is that adobe has patents restricting the format, although they do grant them to anyone who has a fully "standards compliant" implementation.
     
     Such issue appears to only really apply to proprietary viewers and producers, as mupdf, ghostcript and poppler appear to meet the base standard and also implement some extensions.
     
     "adobe reader" is know for sometimes producing pdfs that are sabotaged on any other viewer, although GNU ghostcript can repair such pdfs.
     
     
     pdf is a good format for viewing-only purposes, as you can be confident that it will display the same anywhere (although some proprietary viewers have issues like not implementing pdf links), but good luck editing it (this sometimes isn't a problem - very limited edits in some documents are possible via a text editor and libreoffice can embed .odt files into pdfs and you can embed the .tex file(s) into the pdf with pdflatex).
   • Embed this notice
     Pi_rat (pi_rat@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 29-Jan-2025 19:46:47 JST Pi_rat

     in reply to
     @Suiseiseki What are your thoughts on pdf? I like books and though hate adobe, pdf is favorite format to read in.