Embed Notice

@mira I mean, I think there is a point where adherence to FOSS principles can become absurd — like Debian refusing to include non-free drivers as an option in their main easy to find installer for many years, thus essentially stopping most people with a modern laptop that doesn't have an ethernet port from even installing it. The mission of FOSS should be to improve people's software freedom as much as possible, and putting artificial limitations on your software to prevent people from doing non-free things not only actually *decreases* their (freedom because people should be free to make mistakes and use crappy software if they have to or choose to), but, in completely preventing people from using such software, it actually makes it so that it's impossible for people to improve their rights even a little bit if it isn't possible for them to be *perfectly* free. It's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good — saying if that if someone isn't willing to go 100% FOSS then they don't get any software freedom. Or, for another example, the Libre version of the Linux kernel refusing to allow microcode updates. You are a computer is already going to be running proprietary micro code and firmware that you have no control over and no idea what the fuck it's doing. So allowing manufacturers to upgrade their microcode or firmware literally isn't changing the situation at all. Even if what you are objecting to is them being able to load new microcode whenever they want in either case you're using proprietary microcode that you know nothing about and have no control over that was loaded without your permission so not allowing any new microcode literally doesn't help with anything and only makes your system less secure.