Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Perfectionism

[Jean Louis]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01:46PM +0100, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> 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.

The discussion is deviating. It was me who pointed it out first, if I
remember well. Let me remind you why:

Basis is
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG) and my understanding is
that non-free software shall not be recommended. The first sentence on
PureOS webpage was recommendation of products, notebooks, having
non-free BIOS.

So I was not judging PureOS regarding hardware where it is installed,
I was judging your website, recommending users in the first paragraph
to purchase notebooks with preinstalled non-free BIOS.

So the matter is of focus. Users arrive to website, and they are to
buy notebooks. I have nothing against it. Only when promoting free
distribution, I think it shall not be in focus, that is all.

You changed that in last 2 days. Jeff claims, it was never there. OK I
will pretend it was not.

> 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.

Basis is
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG), section "Words to
Avoid".

It is part of guidelines. So, whatever religious sect it is, when I
wish to join the sect, I am going to comply with their guidelines.

Instead of learning definitions and understanding why it is so, you
say how being nitpicky is not important, but exactly the nitpicky
attitude is important, as that is the one bringing out the message
into the public.

What I see here:

1) Your stand, like where you are, what you promote, it is not free
software, rather it is FLOSS. You tend to be neutral, you don't want
to loose customers, but rather to increase sales, by calling both
movements to join, those of free software and those of open
source. Correct me if I am wrong?

2) Free System Distribution Guidelines, ask you to avoid certain
words. So, when you have a distribution to promote free software, you
should not promote open source in the same time, that is my
conclusion. It is simply not the same, use internet and research.

> 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

Before 1-2 days I have found it too, reported, maybe there will be
change.

> 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 sad that you claim to be in the free software movement, but have
this kind of outside viewpoint.

> 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.

I am in fear when you say "adapt to times". Does it mean adapting to
"open source" and not promoting free software 4 freedoms?

The free software movement is there just because of not adapting to
times, but because of stubborness against the changes of times that
were coming in past, and will be coming in future.

The movement may be small, but significant enough that somebody opens
up a business, and start selling notebooks, in order to provide for
many families in future.

Jean Louis