I can't tell what's worse, people still insisting on using Windows or macOS despite them becoming even more locked-down than ever or the freetards who insist on using only FSF-approved GNU+Linux distros that can only run on 2011 Thinkpads.
Don't listen to these idiots. Even using a shitty distro with SystemD such as Linux Mint or Pop_OS is 1000x better than putting up with the bullshit that Microsoft and Apple are giving you and will give you in the future. Despite most GNU+Linux distros coming with some proprietary software, I have yet to encounter a single distro that requires you to link your installation with some online account, unless you count ChromeOS, Android (which is only Linux, not GNU), and SteamOS. I would say that you should stay away from those distros and maybe stay away from anything RedHat or vanilla Ubuntu, and that you should install Librewolf after installing your distro as most distros still bundle vanilla Firefox as the default browser, but other than that, you should be fine.
And look, I would love to see the day where nobody has to rely on proprietary software anymore, but we are just not there yet. I still like to remain optimistic, despite all the blackpills, but you need to be pragmatic about this. Sometimes, you do have to work within the system before you can fully replace it.
@djsumdog To be fair, there have been many times where I install a distro on recently purchased hardware and I have to do some configurations to make it work properly, which is why I try to buy computers that are actually built for Linux, like System76.
@djsumdog I just wish they offered options other than Ubuntu and Pop_OS for distro choices. Their headphone jacks also suck. If you just move one millimeter, it disconnects.
@xianc78 I love the free software movement and I have a lot of respect for Mr. Stallman and his valuable contribution to computer science, despite his eccentricities.
However I will never be able to justify the "everything must be FOSS or you're a stupid normie" mindset. Diehard FOSS advocates are some of the most toxic elitists and I don't think they understand that they're only hurting their cause. RMS knows this and tries his darn best to not blame individuals for being abused by bad software companies.
A normal person is not going to think "I should drop everything I rely on to do my work because this guy on the internet told me I'm a retard." They're going to think free software is lame and continue to delay the inevitable M$ bullshit by using old Windows and then eventually just accept the malpractice.
I think a lot of the evil of proprietary software is overblown too, yes it is inherently anti-user in some ways, but the whole point of concern is that it's *easier* to abuse, not that it's always worse or better. Not all proprietary software is malware. Part of education on Free Software should be helping people understand how FOSS is more trustworthy and make it a selling point, distinct from the faux-privacy-focused corporations that lie to people using black boxes. Telling someone they need to go schizo and change their computing habits overnight to become some copyleft protestor to their own detriment will do nothing.
When I found out about the FOSS movement I did not drop all of my proprietary software. Especially since I'm a gamer so that makes up 99.9% of what I do. But I did learn a valuable lesson about trust and was able to selectively choose some free software alternatives for my work so that I could control my computer a little more. Software freedom is all about making good choices for yourself.
@xianc78 Regarding the FreeSoftwareExtremist fedi instance: the last time I interacted with someone from there, they straight up told me to commit suicide because my website had JavaScript on it.
The funny part was, the part that got them upset was a page asking for their consent.
It's really impossible to tell if they're just trolling or actual zealots ... and I'm not sure if it matters. 🥲
@djsumdog @bonkmaykr The worst part is that they only care if the JS in question has an FSF approved license, which honestly means jackshit because the web admins can still do whatever the fuck they want with your data, if it is sent back to the server.
There is no "FOSS ideology", although there is the ideology of freedom and the ideology of covering up freedom to lick corporate boots.
@pesekcuy @bonkmaykr Sui literally takes everything the FSF and GNU project says as gospel. He will even scold you if you use the word "Linux" to mean the whole GNU+Linux operating system or if you use the word "FOSS".
That's a point that I forgot to bring up: the FSF's insistence on using certain words. I agree that using "Google" or "Photoshop" as verbs for searching and photo editing respectively does re-enforce their monopolies, but I never understood why Stallman insisted that you don't use the word "hacker" to refer to security breakers. That has nothing to do with software freedom. That's just him defending some subculture that doesn't even exist anymore.
I will scold you if you call GNU, "Linux" or refer to free software as "FOSS".
>Stallman insisted that you don't use the word "hacker" to refer to security breakers.
He insists you not use the wrong word to describe crackers and smear him.
>That's just him defending some subculture that doesn't even exist anymore.
The hacker subculture does exist - many people know what a hack is and what hack value is and that it has nothing to do with cracking except the rare crack that requires playful cleverness to pull off.
@bonkmaykr
>However I will never be able to justify the "everything must be FOSS or you're a stupid normie" mindset. Diehard FOSS advocates are some of the most toxic elitists and I don't think they understand that they're only hurting their cause.
I like the Free Software Movement, but I have always been skeptical about it sense I first heard about it. It was around the time of the Snowden leaks that I was aware of it, but it was just a coincidence because I just so happened to be using a Chromebook at the time and the only option other than ChromeOS was to install some modified version of Ubuntu that ran parallel to it. I learned a lot about GNU+Linux, why people like it, and the philosophy behind both free software and open-source. But when listening to the then-recent interviews with Stallman, he was talking about privacy and saying that free software was the only solution. I knew that was false because I know for sure that something like an old NES ROM wasn't going to spy on me, but Stallman would say that was bad anyway.
And before the privacy issues were even relevant, Stallman's main talking point was about "sharing is caring", saying that proprietary software developers keep people divided and isolated by prohibiting people to share. Except it doesn't. Never in my life have I lost friends because I couldn't copy a piece of software and give it to them. I'm not a fan of "intellectual property", but muh sharing isn't the most important thing in the world. That's probably why most people didn't care before 2013.
>I think a lot of the evil of proprietary software is overblown too, yes it is inherently anti-user in some ways, but the whole point of concern is that it's *easier* to abuse, not that it's always worse or better. Not all proprietary software is malware.
EXACTLY! Like I already said earlier, there are plenty of examples of proprietary software that has proven not to be malware. We also have decompilations of old games now and we can see for a fact that they never included any backdoors, even some of those that were released more recently. And I don't like how Stallman paints everyone who releases proprietary software as evil. Was Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya evil for releasing Cave Story as proprietary freeware? Of course not. He was making something that he loved and probably never even heard of the FSF. Even if he released it under a more restrictive shareware license, I wouldn't label him as evil.
He was clearly speaking about network computer software and free software is the only solution to that.
>I know for sure that something like an old NES ROM wasn't going to spy on me,
That is only the case because it was impossible to at the time - they developers could have added spyware, they would have.
>Stallman would say that was bad anyway.
Software without the 4 freedoms is always bad.
>keep people divided and isolated by prohibiting people to share. Except it doesn't.
A proprietary license gives you the choice of either obeying the law and not distributing, or breaking the law and distribution it.
In many cases, especially where enforcement is effective, this prevents sharing.
There is no case where you are prohibited from sharing free software.
>Never in my life have I lost friends because I couldn't copy a piece of software and give it to them.
Yes, proprietary software gives you the choice between obeying the law and making your friends unhappy or breaking the law and making your friends happy.
This is very bad state - you should be able to make your friends happy while also obeying the law - that is what free software is about.
>I'm not a fan of "intellectual property"
The fact you give credibility to something that doesn't exist is a case of you being a fan of it.
>there are plenty of examples of proprietary software that has proven not to be malware
How you are forbidden from exercising the 4 freedoms is malicious enough.
>We also have decompilations of old games now and we can see for a fact that they never included any backdoors, even some of those that were released more recently.
Oh wow, those didn't contain backdoors, how generous.
Often such games are obfuscated to prevent the user from learning, which is an evil.
>Was Daisuke "Pixel" Amaya evil for releasing Cave Story as proprietary freeware?
Yes he was evil - the decision to make it proprietary and also obfuscate the files to restrict freedom 1 further was an evil act.
He wasn't even out to get money, so he could be moral and released it as free software (and maybe asked for donations), but he didn't.
>He was making something that he loved and probably never even heard of the FSF
If he really loved it, he would set it free.
He does free software.
>I should drop everything I rely on to do my work
I have never written to do that once.
I have just pointed out how it's clearly not your work if you rely on proprietary software to do it.
If people know that free software exists and was written to give the users freedom, without the message being distorted by "open source" degeneracy, the user has been given the chance to decide whether they will take their freedom back or submit to a proprietary master.
>I think a lot of the evil of proprietary software is overblown too
The evil of proprietary software is always underblown and discredited up - it's far worse than you could even imagine.
>Not all proprietary software is malware
Can you name a unicorn proprietary software that isn't malware?
Not respecting the users freedom is inherently malicious, but for that point I'll exclude that.
>people understand how FOSS is more trustworthy and make it a selling point
Focusing on a merely practical point as a "selling" point is doomed for failure, as proprietary software companies are very good at pointing out the very few cases where previously free software had become untrustworthy (i.e. xz-utils backdooring, where proprietary software had been slipped into a release archive) and very good at covering up the countless cases of proprietary malware.
If a company promises "trustworthy" proprietary software (i.e. partially source-available proprietary software shilled as fully source-available "open source" software), why would a user "sold" on trustworthy software not pay for a copy and run it?
If the user is instead taught to value freedom, they will say no to such proprietary software and remain free.
>Telling someone they need to go schizo and change their computing habits overnight to become some copyleft protestor
I have never written that.
>When I found out about the FOSS movement
A disaster as no such movement exists.
There is the pure and true free software movement and there is the corporate bootlicking "open source" movement and "FOSS" attempts to be neutral between both - but even fails at that.
>was able to selectively choose some free software alternatives
A disaster as you considered them to be mere alternatives, rather than free replacements.
>Software freedom is all about making good choices for yourself.
If you are always going to continue to surrender your freedom to proprietary software, are you making good choices for yourself?
> deeply insulting
Wtf are you on about
> I have never written to do that once.
Yeah because I wasn't talking about you. Unless you did say that? You are not the only user on your instance.
> name a
Like 98% of software produced before the internet made monetizing user abuse so easy.
Not going to bother reading the rest of your toot because it just comes off to me as overly pedantic autism meant to be "correct" and not to be helpful.
I haven't seen any other user on the instance say that either.
>Like 98% of software produced before the internet made monetizing user abuse so easy.
That isn't the name of a software.
Monetization means using something as a currency. User abuse still hasn't been directly used as a currency yet.
@xianc78 I fell into that for a few years mostly out of autistic paranoia, which I was ironically cured of when sent some emails to Stallman and he literally just said "calm down, avoid telemetry, data collection, and javascript."
For me it is always down to mitigating and keeping as much stuff as I can be bothered to libre. I unfortunately am still beholden to muh vidya. I don't know if those types of people see it as some epic flex to be as libre as possible or if they were as paranoid as I was. There's a point where it becomes a distraction. I think people should try to get others away from windows and mac first.
Trisquel GNU/Linux-libre can run just fine on even the most proprietary of computers.
If it has a Intel or AMD CPU, Intel 1000BASE-T NIC, Realtek 1000BASE-T NIC (most other NIC's too, except for some Broadcom e-waste chipsets), it has intel integrated graphics, or a ASpeed GPU, a ath5k or ath9k Wi-Fi card, or other Wi-Fi or bluetooth card that works with free software, or a nvidia GPU (how ironic), that hardware will work (nvidia up to the 700 series has free reclocking and peripheral software and it appears newer will work, just at idle clocks).
Even AMD or ATI GPUs do work, at native resolution, but with no 3D acceleration or ACPI S3 suspend (depending on your use case, that may not matter to you).
Someone can quite easily try out a live image of Trisquel and see if their hardware is faulty and if not they can proceeded to have freedom, otherwise they can decide to choose if they want to install a proprietary distro instead.
On those computers the BIOS or UEFI is proprietary, but at least the user doesn't install proprietary software.
The only GNUbootable thinkpads are those from 2008, as they lack the digital handcuffs the 2011 models have.
>Despite most GNU+Linux distros coming with some proprietary software
That is a serious problem and works against the goal of why GNU exists.
Those distros go down to the road to proprietary hell, because it's faster, when they should be going up the road to freedom; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
>I have yet to encounter a single distro that requires you to link your installation with some online account >ChromeOS, Android (which is only Linux, not GNU), and SteamOS
You can't help but to contradict yourself can you?
- Gentoo GNU/Linux without freedom (ChromeOS) is unusable without an account (the "guest account" doesn't retain any state).
- Android uses the kernel, Linux, without GNU (it's hot garbage until you install GNU via termux really) and most versions don't force "linking" any account.
- SteamOS is slightly modified versions of different GNU/Linux distros.
>I would love to see the day where nobody has to rely on proprietary software anymore, but we are just not there yet.
Total proprietary death will only be achieved when proprietary software is eliminated - using more and more of it when it appears convenient goes in the opposite direction to the goal.
The day when nobody has to rely on proprietary software is today, although it requires fighting for your freedom and making good hardware choices.
>you need to be pragmatic about this.
Yes, the whole idea of the GNU project is to be pragmatic, but not ruinously so; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html
>Sometimes, you do have to work within the system before you can fully replace it.
Unix and other proprietary software was worked with and replaced piece by piece until finally everything was replaced.
You're saying it's a good thing to go backwards by adding proprietary software to a free system and then proceeding to never replace it?
Yes, I will point out that Arch is proprietary software to proprietary meme posters without fail.
If you encounter some weird thing, well you just gotta look it up (and likely 20 other people have reported it or have workarounds). If not, you can report it yourself, or ask in IRC.
Feels like impossibly high standards. "I want to use something that was developed for free, but I expect it to work 100% out of the box without contributing back anything including tests and bug reports" 🙄