Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ?uper?nekFriend ? (supersnekfriend@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:04:52 JST ?uper?nekFriend ?
   >Debian is proprietary software
   What the fuck am I reading?
   
   RT: https://freesoftwareextremist.com/objects/0ae01ea3-8a5b-4685-bdd6-f53434db8ea1
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:04:51 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @SuperSnekFriend The truth - Debian went full proprietary in utter contempt of the users freedom; https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#Debian
     
     The only installer now available contains proprietary malware that takes the users freedom (that's right, you download the Debian installer .iso and you don't have freedom, as it contains proprietary software that denies you freedom).
     
     The installer proceeds to detect if the hardware could use proprietary software (even if it can't) and then permanently installs it *without even asking* or *without even telling the user what was installed* (you have to go and look under /lib/firmware to see what proprietary software was installed).
     
     There is a poorly documented flag that disables the non-consensual malware installer, but that doesn't fix the problem of how the installer is proprietary software.
     
     
     For now there are workarounds when you can use an archived old installer and upgrade, or you can manually install via de-bootstrap - but optionally free isn't enough, since after the first nonfree program is added to a system, more and more will keep getting put in and none of such proprietary malware is ever taken out (unless it becomes totally obsolete).
     
     The next slide on the proprietary slope could be to merge "free" and "contrib" and then eventually merge it with "nonfree", but we'll see.
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:07:17 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • Branman65?
     @SuperSnekFriend Idk but Stallman being a fat jew Epstein defender is telling.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:07:17 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Branman65?
     @branman65 @SuperSnekFriend Stallman never defended Epstein - he called him a serial rapist and pointed out the sentence he got was so lenient it was illegal.
     
     He was defending his late friend Minsky from false allegations; https://stallmansupport.org/
     
     
     Meanwhile Bill Gates partied with Epstein multiple times and defended his behavior, but that's alright isn't it?
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:07:18 JST Branman65?

     in reply to
     @SuperSnekFriend Its so unhinged
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:07:18 JST Branman65?

     in reply to

     • Branman65?
     @SuperSnekFriend The elitism, the fanaticism, the purity spiraling, its amazing
   • Embed this notice
     Branman65? (branman65@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:07:19 JST Branman65?

     in reply to
     @SuperSnekFriend Ramblings of a cult member
   • Embed this notice
     ?uper?nekFriend ? (supersnekfriend@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 29-Apr-2025 03:07:19 JST ?uper?nekFriend ?

     in reply to

     • Branman65?
     @branman65
     I still follow him because Suiseiseki's commitment to the bit is so entertaining.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 16:30:44 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • opal
     • Red Rozenglass
     @rozenglass @SuperSnekFriend >proprietary software in some core parts of the operating system, to improve the user-experience.
     Adding proprietary malware without even asking to what should and must be a free system rather *degenerates* the user-experience.
     
     >Includes proprietary software in the default install is a clear and unambiguous cut, but goes against the hivemind PR of the "Linux development community"
     The kernel, Linux includes proprietary software in the tree, disguised as arrays of numbers.
     
     "linux-firmware.git" is part of the default "install", as many drivers in Linux are written to not work without it (even if the driver works fine without it).
     
     >Breakout the reverse engineering toolkit, and all software is free software >:3 Patched Final Fantasy VI ROMs, nom >.<
     No, half of freedom 1 does not give you free software; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
     
     Although trivial patches to proprietary software and patches to bypass some digital handcuffed may be trivial to achieve, that is not freedom, as such modifications are illegal and also cannot legally be distributed.
     
     Anything more advanced starts taking hundreds of hours, which is not freedom.
     
     To have the freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (for example, to make complicated changes, rather than trivial ones in your limited lifespan), you need the source code.
     
     @wowaname >i flat-out disagree with you that free software includes the freedom to use proprietary software
     Although running proprietary software is the antithesis of free software, the only thing that lets you run proprietary software no matter what is free software (proprietary software often refuses to run, or refuses to run other software).
     
     >that complex codebases are akin to propietary software in spirit even if they are free from a licensing standpoint
     Provided that the whole codebase is in the preferred form of modification, that is free software no matter how complicated it is - even if it's so complicated to takes 4 people to understand it, that's fine, as those 4 people aren't been prevented from working together.
   • Embed this notice
     opal (wowaname@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 16:30:46 JST opal

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Red Rozenglass
     @rozenglass @Suiseiseki @SuperSnekFriend
     >Breakout the reverse engineering toolkit, and all software is free software
     that's actually one thing that sets my views apart from what the FSF classifies as free software (and hence why i explicitly stated how understanding the code is a trait of free software) but i've seen others agree with me, that complex codebases are akin to propietary software in spirit even if they are free from a licensing standpoint
   • Embed this notice
     Red Rozenglass (rozenglass@fedi.dreamscape.link)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 16:30:47 JST Red Rozenglass

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • opal
     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @wowaname@freesoftwareextremist.com @SuperSnekFriend@poa.st
     also i flat-out disagree with you that free software includes the freedom to use proprietary software.
     don't overload what "free software" already means, please.
     I wasn't arguing for this, but the opposite; I prefer the sharp definition of "free software". But I can see how "Free software, really means having the freedom" in my previous message can potentially be interpreted both way, my bad.
     makes a compelling argument that anything made legally downloadable is implicitly "yours" by nature of how the web works
     Breakout the reverse engineering toolkit,
     and all software is free software >:3
     
     Patched Final Fantasy VI ROMs, nom >.
   • Embed this notice
     opal (wowaname@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 16:30:48 JST opal

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • opal
     • Red Rozenglass
     @rozenglass @Suiseiseki @SuperSnekFriend also i flat-out disagree with you that free software includes the freedom to use proprietary software. "free software" explicitly refers to the ability to use the code without worry of violating copyright (although https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html makes a compelling argument that anything made legally downloadable is implicitly "yours" by nature of how the web works), understand how the code works, and modify the code to patch bugs or add features. the latter two points are why *i* personally favour free software over proprietary because it saves me headache when i know i'm in control and don't have to pester someone to fix bugs, and wait, and wait.... that said, i *agree* that people are free to mix in proprietary software if they understand the risks; i use it assuming no other option available. but these are two distinct concepts, so don't overload what "free software" already means, please.
   • Embed this notice
     opal (wowaname@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 16:30:49 JST opal

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Red Rozenglass
     @rozenglass @SuperSnekFriend @Suiseiseki
     >but also includes some closed-source proprietary software in some core parts of the operating system, to improve the user-experience.
     >If the line is to be drawn, where would it be?
     debian installer really *should* ask the user before installing convenience (but nonfree) drivers. i forget what other distributions' installers have this prompt, but i remember being asked by at least one of them at some point. that said, even the kernel has long been tainted to the degree that people felt the need to spin off into linux-libre, and now that it's unmaintained, by default no linux distribution can live up to the stringent "fully free" standard expressed here
     
     the obvious counterargument is "well, if you don't want proprietary firmware, choose open hardware" and ideally we live in this world, but in reality linux sets out to support whatever hardware it can by any means until free alternatives are sufficient. i speak from a hardware-preservationist perspective when i say, for my needs, it's "good enough" when i can't control the hardware. if i'm buying hardware or building new systems myself, i try my best to avoid closed hardware altogether; it's why i made it a point to build my network stack with openwrt-supported devices rather than opting for dd-wrt or similar, and why i rebuilt my desktop with amd/amd, because overall those are better alternatives. but i still have some shit lingering around especially when it comes to NICs and maybe the odd peripheral
   • Embed this notice
     Red Rozenglass (rozenglass@fedi.dreamscape.link)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 16:30:50 JST Red Rozenglass

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @SuperSnekFriend@poa.st @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com An operating system that includes a lot of free / open-source software, like OpenSSL, Bash, Vi, in addition to an "open-source" kernel, but also includes some closed-source proprietary software in some core parts of the operating system, to improve the user-experience. The direction of development of the OS is mostly driven by corporate interest, funding, and development resources, with the primary goal of reliably satisfying professional users in corporate settings. Is the OS in question:
     
     [ ] OSX
     [ ] Debian
     [ ] RHEL
     [ ] All of the above
     
     If the line is to be drawn, where would it be? Includes proprietary software in the default install is a clear and unambiguous cut, but goes against the hivemind PR of the "Linux development community", who are getting brainwashed little by little into accepting more and more, not seeing Theseus ship changing around them.
     
     The conversation can be had whether having /some/ firmware blobs installed by the OS automatically is not /too/ bad, or that it should be made easier for the user to install them if they wish to harm their freedom, but that doesn't mean the words are suddenly muddy and mean nothing. Free software, really means having the freedom.
     
     I mourn the Debian project, what remains is a zombie wearing its skin.
     
     
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Apr-2025 16:32:55 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • opal
     • Red Rozenglass
     @wowaname @rozenglass @SuperSnekFriend >felt the need to spin off into linux-libre, and now that it's unmaintained
     GNU Linux-libre is maintained?