lemm.ee

-39 points

9 months ago

No one gets to decide what i run on my device

(Except your device’s manufacturer)

No one gets to decide where i run my app

(Except your cloud/SaaSS provider or proprietary app developer)

No one gets to decide what must be deleted
(Except your cloud/SaaSS provider or proprietary app developer)

!I assume this was your point already, I am just agenda posting over here :3!<

report

[ - ]

MotoAsh@lemmy.world

24 points

9 months ago

What “agenda” are you posting? You’re just nay-saying.

Go eat hay elsewhere with that attitude.

report

[ - ]

2 points

9 months ago

I am pointing out that user-controlled computing and user freedom is in a bad shape. That’s not nay-saying, since there’s a way forward: open hardware and offline-first/p2p software.

report

Freesoftwareenjoyer@lemmy.world

[ - ]

7 points

9 months ago

We’ve had a way forward for 40 years and it’s called Free Software: https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

report

PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB

[ - ]

1 point

9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/Ag1AKIl_2GM

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

report

[ - ]

1 point

9 months ago

I agree! But in at least one case the FSF’s understanding/handling of free software is ineffective: firmware. Especially with boot chain security being increasingly implemented in a user freedom hostile way, the focus as presented by the FSF is imo too narrow.

report

Freesoftwareenjoyer@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

9 months ago

The FSF’s stance is just based on our current capabilities. Most people still use proprietary operating systems. We are capable of developing free alternatives of non-free programs, even very complicated ones. But it’s not realistic to think that we can currently replace all firmware for any device if we don’t know how it works. The amount of products that have the RYF certificate is already very small. Even Librem 5 didn’t manage to get it. When it becomes easier, I’m sure they will change the requirements or add more levels.

I’m pretty sure Libreboot contains proprietary firmware now and GNU is planning to develop an actually libre fork. So it’s silly for the developer to criticize the FSF for not being radical enough. It makes me think that the person doesn’t really believe in what they are saying.

But then the author says they want us to have proprietary firmware packages in our systems. So they want our OSes to be less libre… They even compare not including proprietary firmware to burning books… I stopped reading after that.

report

[ - ]

1 point

9 months ago

I am not saying that we need to replace every non-libre firmware, I am saying that not using firmware updates is hurting free software adoption and doesn’t advance user freedom.

report