Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Perfectionism

[Zlatan Todoric]

Hi,


On 11/10/2016 09:46 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> Your summary of this thread could hardly be less correct. We already
> identified at least one problem with the OS itself: the presence of the stock
> firefox. No one is upset at Purism for putting PureOS on their hardware, but
> we suggested a clear separation between the two fronts. As John Sullivan
> explained, FSF cannot endorse the hardware project on the account of nonfree
> BIOS, so they cannot endorse PureOS as long as the two projects are fused
> within the web space the way they are. In particular,  the laptop store can
> continue doing all the same things, like advertizing PureOS and shipping it
> preinstalled. The inverse endorsement (PureOS -> Librem) may also be possible,
> in a way similar to how Trisquel endorses ThinkPenguin hardware.

John didn't explained that, on contrary he said that you can't judge 
PureOS regarding to hardware where it is preinstalled. And what 
separation are we talking about - PureOS is Free, putting it on some 
other domain or whatsoever is not going to make it more Free.

Also for all, to outsiders "words not to use" sounds more like religious 
sect trying to forbid which books  to read - that is going to bring more 
damage than good to average users encountering first time Free software.

Being nitpicky about wording and not about how to deliver content in 
this age (I really can't see how this website can help to any new user 
today http://ututo.org/) is obviously failing (if it isn't obvious to 
you that after 3 decades GNU/FSF are still really small and actually 
every year less and less important to average mass "attached" to 
Internet/personal devices and that ecosystem just moved on, well I can't 
ever explain it to you then).

I am not saying that we should throw away, on contrary, we should steer 
even more, but we should adapt to times and reform the strategy. Same 
old strategy doesn't work and as past proved, it is alienating 
developers and users.

> On Friday, November 11, 2016 00:14:25 Riley Baird wrote:
> > The key thing which I am understanding from following this thread is
> > that Purism wants to get PureOS FSDG-certified. Nobody can see any
> > problem with the OS, but they're upset that Purism is putting the OS
> > onto hardware that has a non-free BIOS.
> >
> >  From a business perspective, selling only hardware with a free BIOS is
> > not practical. At all. So effectively, you're asking Purism to either
> > adopt a business model that won't work as a condition of certification.