fsf will not buy talos mainboard which is libre software. Tell your opinion?
I wrote name at domain suggesting a special crowd funding run by the fsf in order to get funds
to buy talos hardware https://www.raptorcs.com/content/TL2WK2/intro.html.
Either fsf could not read my english or chose to answer me vapidly. In order to limit
fsf's costs about the crowd funding I suggested the crowd funding should run on fsf's
homepage and use this software
https://mediagoblin.org/pages/campaign.html
I would then ask people in general if they would participate in campaigning and making
the crowd funding software.
Should people not have wanted to contribute to the crowd funding few costs would
apply. Would 10000usd have been gathered, fsf would get talos hardware and be
able to test it.
Later I suggested the same talos hardware crowd funding to Stallman and asked
if fsf would consider a due diligence regarding the talos 2 in order to maybe state an endorsement
of the talos hardware. His returning emails has made me doubt fsf's practices.
First he answered that he did not know about the talos mainboard and therefore he
had asked around to get more pieces of information.
People had told him talos 2 mainboard is nothing special. There were other options
and fsf should not endorse one over another.
To my knowledge that is incorrect. I know of no other company which is
manufacturing a new libre software mainboard which is comparable to
a x86 mainboard. What is
most important, the talos hardware is made to be libre software from the
start.
My point of view is, fsf should take any adequate step to promote and endorse
libre software computers because there is no working market about
libre software computers.
About the talos crowd funding Stallman initially said, fsf already have
libre software computers.
He got my counter arguments.
Libre software computers are rare. Fsf even if inconvenient
should go a step further to support and buy them. Stallman
knows libre software computers may be inconvenient. Who
can fsf tell to get talos computers if fsf itself will not buy
them?
Fsf has to set an example. Showing people new libre
software computers are a fact.
Getting the talos computers tested by a critical entity
like the fsf is an important matter.
Getting the fsf as a reference customer is likely beneficial
for the manufacturer.
Every sale probably counts for the manufacturer.
Then Stallman said the talos computers could cost
to much money and occupy fsf's staff inadequately.
Odd argument because in the crowd funding's targets
you would include money to cover costs for
installing software and getting the computers
running.
The talos hardware is new which encompass a risk.
The risk is worth taking in my opinion.
I wrote name at domain suggesting a special crowd funding run by the fsf in order to get funds
to buy talos hardware https://www.raptorcs.com/content/TL2WK2/intro.html.
Either fsf could not read my english or chose to answer me vapidly. In order to limit
fsf's costs about the crowd funding I suggested the crowd funding should run on fsf's
homepage and use this software
https://mediagoblin.org/pages/campaign.html
I would then ask people in general if they would participate in campaigning and making
the crowd funding software.
Should people not have wanted to contribute to the crowd funding few costs would
apply. Would 10000usd have been gathered, fsf would get talos hardware and be
able to test it.
Later I suggested the same talos hardware crowd funding to Stallman and asked
if fsf would consider a due diligence regarding the talos 2 in order to maybe state an endorsement
of the talos hardware. His returning emails has made me doubt fsf's practices.
First he answered that he did not know about the talos mainboard and therefore he
had asked around to get more pieces of information.
People had told him talos 2 mainboard is nothing special. There were other options
and fsf should not endorse one over another.
To my knowledge that is incorrect. I know of no other company which is
manufacturing a new libre software mainboard which is comparable to
a x86 mainboard. What is
most important, the talos hardware is made to be libre software from the
start.
My point of view is, fsf should take any adequate step to promote and endorse
libre software computers because there is no working market about
libre software computers.
About the talos crowd funding Stallman initially said, fsf already have
libre software computers.
I wrote name at domain suggesting a special crowd funding run by the fsf in order to get funds
to buy talos hardware https://www.raptorcs.com/content/TL2WK2/intro.html.
Either fsf could not read my english or chose to answer me vapidly. In order to limit
fsf's costs about the crowd funding I suggested the crowd funding should run on fsf's
homepage and use this software
https://mediagoblin.org/pages/campaign.html
I would then ask people in general if they would participate in campaigning and making
the crowd funding software.
Should people not have wanted to contribute to the crowd funding few costs would
apply. Would 10000usd have been gathered, fsf would get talos hardware and be
able to test it.
Later I suggested the same talos hardware crowd funding to Stallman and asked
if fsf would consider a due diligence regarding the talos 2 in order to maybe state an endorsement
of the talos hardware. His returning emails has made me doubt fsf's practices.
First he answered that he did not know about the talos mainboard and therefore he
had asked around to get more pieces of information.
People had told him talos 2 mainboard is nothing special. There were other options
and fsf should not endorse one over another.
To my knowledge that is incorrect. I know of no other company which is
manufacturing a new libre software mainboard which is comparable to
a x86 mainboard. What is
most important, the talos hardware is made to be libre software from the
start.
My point of view is, fsf should take any adequate step to promote and endorse
libre software computers because there is no working market about
libre software computers.
About the talos crowd funding Stallman initially said, fsf already have
libre software computers.
He got my counter arguments.
Libre software computers are rare. Fsf even if inconvenient
should go a step further to support and buy them. Stallman
knows libre software computers may be inconvenient. Who
can fsf tell to get talos computers if fsf itself will not buy
them?
Fsf has to set an example. Showing people new libre
software computers are a fact.
Getting the talos computers tested by a critical entity
like the fsf is an important matter.
Getting the fsf as a reference customer is likely beneficial
for the manufacturer.
Every sale probably counts for the manufacturer.
Then Stallman said the talos computers could cost
to much money and occupy fsf's staff inadequately.
Odd argument because in the crowd funding's targets
you would include money to cover costs for
installing software and getting the computers
running.
The talos hardware is new which encompass a risk.
The risk is worth taking in my opinion.
In short fsf says, we want people to buy libre software
computers. The fsf is not going to be a front runner
and buy the hardware themselves.
If fsf is hesitant regarding a crowd funding, I suggested fsf
should allocate 5000usd from their fundings and buy a
talos 2 lite https://www.raptorcs.com/content/TL1BC1/intro.html
Likely one computer would not jeopardize fsf. If testing
the talos 2 lite went successfully fsf could run a
crowd funding. Else the money would be lost and fsf
would be able to tell us, talos computers are no good.
Fsf's severs are kgpe-d16.
https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw
When did the production of them stop?
A poll.
Should fsf get talos computers?
If the number of trisquel users is low the trisquel
costs are questionable. Thanks.
"Then Stallman said the talos computers could cost to much money and occupy fsf's staff inadequately."
I can understand this point: They are expensive. It's not like the FSF has unlimited funds.
And FSF staff time is indeed a factor: No FSF-endorsed distro supports this CPU architecture. So the FSF would also need to port one. Which, by definition, means taking up more time than not having to port one. The FSF's servers run FSF-endorsed distros for the same reason you're saying they should be be getting libre computers: To promote and endorse them. No FSF-endorsed distro supports this CPU architecture.
The questions I raise in this post, I know they should be directed
at fsf. Because the times I have asked fsf on name at domain I got vapidly answers
I might ask here.
> expensive. It's not like the FSF has unlimited funds.
I have already explained how to limit the costs. From when the talos servers
are running why should they be more expensive to maintain than
what fsf has now?
> unlimited funds.
5000usd is not unlimited funds. I would expect libre software people in the Boston area would
take interest in getting the required software configuration done. To Stallman
I mentioned there is a debian iso available.
Would raptorcs sell servers with no software?
> No FSF-endorsed distro supports this CPU architecture.
Which system does fsf use now for servers? I have informed
Stallman about the lack of pieces of information about
fsf's hardware.
> FSF would also need to port one.
Not if the contract with raptorcs says what the talos computers'
configuration should be.
> servers run FSF-endorsed distros
Is that a requirement that fsf will only install these systems
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
on their computers? I understood libre software is the matter.
Else fsf in reality is making it much more difficult for themselves
to get libre software computers.
This decision by Stallman is self-contradictory. In a video
Stallman says, getting libre software capable computers has
the high priority. Now a mainboard is there and he does not
want it.
In his previous email Stallman argued unforeseeable costs.
Before that he argued fsf already has libre software
computers. In his newest email he says there is no
reason for the fsf to promote the talos mainboard. No
reason to promote the only new libre software mainboard on the market?
Instead he would like raptorcs to apply for fsf certification.
That is passive.
I also asked about fsf's involvement in riscv. The most important
hardware development in the libre software field. Stallman
did not answer. I then asked if he could suggest a person
in fsf I could write an email? Ignored.
Maybe this is about me having misunderstood fsf's tasks and abilities.
I expect the fsf to actively search for important developments in
the libre software field and when identified back them up within
fsf's means.
That seems not to be fsf's point of view. More I am likely exaggerating
what impact fsf can have and what the fsf can do.
There are no politic and marketing persons in the fsf?
> Is that a requirement that fsf will only install these systems
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
> on their computers?
Of course. It would be hypocritical to recommend those distros and then use something else.
> I understood libre software is the matter.
Freedom is the matter, which is why the FSF only recommends and uses freedom-respecting distros.
> Else fsf in reality is making it much more difficult for themselves
> to get libre software computers.
Since they already have libre software computers, the question is whether others would benefit. The computer you are recommending is very expensive. Few people could afford it. EOMA68[1] seems more promising to me, and the Libre Tea is in the process of obtaining FSF-endorsement.
I would have wanted a lot of responses. Because then no matter my opinion I would have known
if Stallman not wanting the talos computers would be in line with libre software people.
> Of course. It would be hypocritical to recommend those distros and then use something else.
Is it hypocrisy if a member of fsf's staff installs debian main? Is it hypocrisy if anyone
who endorse libre software installs debian main?
No, it is not.
Trisquel is known to be late on new versions. And on this forum it has been claimed
it does not get updates fast enough.
> Freedom is the matter, which is why the FSF only recommends and uses freedom-respecting distros.
Does fsf tell people to not install debian main?
If so I disagree. You should not limit people's freedom when not necessary.
> Since they already have libre software computers, the question is whether others would benefit.
You have not done much to rebut my arguments. Why don't you tell me how it can not be of value
to raptorcs if they can say, fsf has bought raptorcs computers?
> computer you are recommending is very expensive.
Why do some of you hang on to this argument when a crowdfunding will cover
fsf's costs?
A crowdfunding is democratic. It does not matter if the computer is high priced. If libre
software people pay then fsf gets the computer.
Regarding fsf buying a talos 2 lite for about 5000usd.
In a video Sullivan from fsf says, fsf's financial backup is twice fsf's annual budget.
Then 5000usd is not much.
If talos can sell computers in high numbers the price may get lower.
Fsf does not fare well.
I do not expect fsf's leadership to be informed about everything new on libre software. But
fsf has to be able to know about major developments.
Riscv is now at a point where riscv consumer products may be a possibility. I have not
noticed any statement on riscv by fsf.
I would expect fsf to unasked approach lowrisc.org and sifive.com. Asking them if fsf
could do something for them?
Lowrisc.org and sifive.com probably have not contacted fsf. If they did I imagine
fsf would answer, that is news. Write us if you want a fsf certification. Passive
and not enough.
Sifive.com sold a riscv mainboard.
https://www.crowdsupply.com/sifive/hifive-unleashed
Did fsf buy one?
Fsf should have bought one. Lent it to libre software people. Have them test
the mainboard and make some videos. Then Stallman on a video could have
signed the mainboard and put it on an auction.
Either fsf have no marketing people or they could do better.
I have not noticed fsf talk about maidsafe.net. Which is libre software that
may counter the saass problem.
What about freedombox.org, is fsf involved?
There are several fsf approved systems.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
Still fsf pours money into trisquel.
There is one new libre software mainboard. Fsf will not as much as promote it.
> Is it hypocrisy if a member of fsf's staff installs debian main?
The FSF does not endorse Debian because doing so might guide somebody toward proprietary software. If they were to use Debian and people knew this, it would effectively be an endorsement, and it would undermine the FSF's endorsement of FSDG distros. See: https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html
> Trisquel is known to be late on new versions.
It was only late on Trisquel 8. In general, Trisquel releases are about six months after the upstream Ubuntu release, which is totally fine for a LTS distro.
> You have not done much to rebut my arguments. Why don't you tell me how it can not be of value
> to raptorcs if they can say, fsf has bought raptorcs computers?
I never said that it would not be of value to Raptor. If Raptor were able to say "the FSF bought one of our products" then it would imply that the FSF endorses this product, which may benefit Raptor. However, if Raptor wants FSF endorsement then they should apply for it like other vendors do. If they do not want FSF endorsement, then the FSF should focus on the vendors who do want FSF endorsement rather than keep them waiting.
> Why do some of you hang on to this argument when a crowdfunding will cover
> fsf's costs?
> A crowdfunding is democratic. It does not matter if the computer is high priced. If libre
> software people pay then fsf gets the computer.
See Magic Banana's comment:
"FSF servers all have KGPE-D16 motherboards, which are supported by Libreboot and are RYF certified."
The FSF does not need a new computer, so a crowdfunding campaign to purchase one for them would be useless to the FSF.
It would not be useless to the free software movement to crowdfund the development of a computer than many people could benefit from. However, most people would not benefit from this computer because they could not afford it. It is a much better idea to fund something like EOMA68, and the FSF has advocated funding EOMA68. The FSF is also going to endorse the EOMA68 Libre Tea computer card.
> I would expect fsf to unasked approach lowrisc.org and sifive.com. Asking them if fsf
> could do something for them?
> Lowrisc.org and sifive.com probably have not contacted fsf. If they did I imagine
> fsf would answer, that is news. Write us if you want a fsf certification. Passive
> and not enough.
I think you overestimate the amount of resources that the FSF has. They cannot afford get involved with every project related to free software. They have to prioritize. There are vendors who want FSF endorsement and have applied for it. It is a higher priority for the FSF to get back to these vendors than for them to investigate a vendor who has expressed no interest in FSF endorsement. As for crowdfunding campaigns, they should focus on promoting the ones that are most promising and will have the most benefit to the free software movement.
I agree that RISC-V is promising. Hopefully it is in the future of EOMA68. lowRISC looks interesting too. Thanks for the link.
> Still fsf pours money into trisquel.
Where did you read this? I think that it would be great if Trisquel had more funding, but as far as I know the FSF does not support Trisquel financially. I don't think that the FSF could afford to do so. You seem to think that the FSF has a lot of money. Unfortunately, they don't
I am a translator!
>Trisquel is known to be late on new versions. And on this forum it has been claimed
it does not get updates fast enough.
That's the wrong reason to install Debiannino. The right one is it is 100% free software with or without flying spaghetti's endorsement..
Install, set, forget. Can't recall for the life of me what a bug is.
> Is it hypocrisy if a member of fsf's staff installs debian main? Is it hypocrisy if anyone
> who endorse libre software installs debian main?
It would be hypocrisy to use a distro you don't recommend to others. That doesn't mean it would be hypocrisy for someone to use and recommend Debian because they think it's libre. The FSF specifically lists Debian as not a distro they endorse, so yes, it would be hypocritical for them to use it.
> Does fsf tell people to not install debian main?
> If so I disagree. You should not limit people's freedom when not necessary.
Two things:
1. No. But the FSF does not recommend Debian, regardless of configuration.
2. Telling people what you think they should or shouldn't do does not limit their freedom.
> Why do some of you hang on to this argument when a crowdfunding will cover
> fsf's costs?
Suppose they did that. Where do you think that money comes from?
Money doesn't grow on trees. Money spent putting TALOS computers in FSF facilities, which is completely unnecessary, is money that could be better spent somewhere else. Like, for example, you could buy hundreds of EOMA68 computer cards and pass them out to people with a libre distro on them, and that would at least help give hundreds of people freedom and provide much more publicity than the FSF buying some hardware.
"You seem to think that the FSF has a lot of money. Unfortunately, they don't"
Right. If you compare the finances between the FSF and Microsoft, the FSF's budget for the entire year is equivalent to what Microsoft gets in just under 3 minutes. (Based on Microsoft's 2017 Annual Report of $90 billion in revenue compared to the FSF raising $501,227 in their last fundraiser: https://www.fsf.org/appeal)
"It does not matter if the computer is high priced"
While, yes, the free software movement is supposed to be about freedom and not money I'm not so sure that means we should totally ignore money. Here's why: The goal of the free software movement is nothing less than getting freedom to everyone, everywhere, over every piece of software. Money will be a factor in that. The reason is simple: If we tell people that, in order to be free, they need to buy (say) a one million dollar computer then there will be fewer people that will be able to make the changeover. Yes, I know one million dollars is an exaggeration but it helps to show my point that the cost of moving to freedom is a factor in how many people will be able to make the switch. So it behooves us to make sure that freedom is affordable in pursuit of the bigger goal to get everyone (yes, everyone) over to freedom. That doesn't mean there can't be expensive computers - those things do have their place. Just that those aren't going to be the computers for everyone.
One thing I think about in all of this is... wouldn't be "better" or "more accessible" to the masses if the EOMA68 came tih Trisquel instead of Parabola.
I tried Parabola, and I didn't even manage to install it :P
I tried all of the various installers I think.
> One thing I think about in all of this is... wouldn't be "better" or "more accessible" to the masses if the EOMA68 came tih Trisquel instead of Parabola.
Unfortunately Trisquel does not support ARM at this time, and won't until Ubuntu does.
> I tried Parabola, and I didn't even manage to install it :P
Yes, trying to install Parabola is overwhelming for beginners. Fortunately the Libre Tea will come with Parabola preinstalled.
"Unfortunately Trisquel does not support ARM at this time, and won't until Ubuntu does."
Ubuntu already does, and has for years since 9.04.
I was under the impression that only Ubuntu Server supports ARM, not Ubuntu Desktop. If Ubuntu Desktop supports ARM, why does Trisquel not?
"I was under the impression that only Ubuntu Server supports ARM, not Ubuntu Desktop."
That's how they bill it not it's not as though these are different distros. The only question is what packages are installed by default. The same repos and packages are used regardless.
You'll find that GNOME is built for both armhf and arm64: https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/gnome
And so, someone could go to and get the netboot image from https://www.ubuntu.com/download/server/arm and then proceed to install it and get an experience very similar to Trisquel's netinstall ISO and then install the needed desktop packages on there.
"If Ubuntu Desktop supports ARM, why does Trisquel not?"
Good question.
> Fortunately the Libre Tea will come with Parabola preinstalled.
I can only speak for myself when I say this but:
For me it's out of the questions to use that much money on something I haven't even tried and have no idea how works.
I like to "try" stuff before I commit to buy something.
You can tell me that "Parabola is easy to use, but difficult to install", but it would just be words to me if I haven't tried it myself.
If you understand what I mean. And I believe there are many like me who are "afraid" of buying something they haven't even tried.
> You can tell me that "Parabola is easy to use, but difficult to install", but it would just be words to me if I haven't tried it myself.
I never said it was easy to use. :)
The hardest part is definitely installing, but even after installing it is not as beginner-friendly as Trisquel. Hopefully the Libre Tea ships with a desktop environment preconfigured.
I see:)
Yeah, we'll see
First I have some remarks about this post.
We have reached the point where the roundabout partly has started.
I do not change my opinion and nor do you.
This post only has value should other people read it. I am not
sure they do.
I will respond on the latest contributions.
Though few people have responded I note that a majority are in line
with fsf and Stallman. Maybe not what I would have expected.
It is not what I want the fsf to be.
Again this is not about what fsf wants or requires in terms of hardware.
Instead of ignoring my arguments read them.
> FSF does not endorse Debian
This is not about recommending. It is about advising against.
Which fsf does not about debian main. Fsf says debian
main is an option.
> effectively be an endorsement
No, it would tell people you may install debian main if you think
debian is your best option.
> FSF endorses
I reject how you use the word endorse. To me if you
endorse or recommend something you do it expressly. You
say, I endorse this or that or I recommend this or
that.
You cannot say buying or installing hardware or
software in itself constitutes a recommendation.
If fsf recommends or advice against something then
do it words.
> if Raptor wants FSF endorsement then they should apply for it like other vendors do.
Yes, no reason in Stallman's words to do anything for the only new libre software
mainboard. Stay passive and we will get the hardware we want.
Showing “FSF is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom.”
> do not want FSF endorsement, then the FSF should focus on the vendors who do want FSF endorsement
And there are many of them.
> See Magic Banana's comment:
He says nothing about the talos 2's price.
> useless to the FSF.
And if talos 2 computers are useless to the fsf then why should one
promote or endorse the only new libre software mainboard?
> not be useless to the free software movement to crowdfund the development of a computer than many people could benefit from
Agreed. Let us crowd fund such a computer. Which one is it?
Do not answer the eoma pc card. It is not comparable to a x86 computer. The hardware
in the eoma pc card was not intended to be libre software complying. And part of
it will not be if the pc card gets shipped.
If a lower priced x86 comparable libre software mainboard becomes an option we
should crowd fund it if that is how it could get funded.
> It is a much better idea to fund something like EOMA68
No. You cannot conclude a pc card should be funded over a talos
mainboard. Both are important. They are not in the same product
segment.
> FSF has advocated funding EOMA68.
If that is a fact it is a matter of discrimination. Why promote the pc card and
not talos mainboards?
> you overestimate the amount of resources that the FSF has.
I likely do. Let us for example say fsf wrote lowrisc.org can we do something
for you? If lowrisc.org answered we require 10 programmers. Go
hire them. That would be beyond fsf's means. And fsf would decline.
What if lowrisc answered we could use some voluntary programmers.
Here are the requirements. Please write a newsletter about us. Ask around
if people want to contribute. Fsf could do that.
> cannot afford get involved with every project related to free software.
Blatantly ignoring what I wrote. Riscv is not every project. I claim
maidsafe.net is not every project.
> They have to prioritize.
What does fsf prioritize? Is there a list?
What to prioritize higher than riscv?
> There are vendors who want FSF endorsement and have applied for it. It is a higher priority for the FSF to get back to these vendors than for them to investigate a vendor who has expressed no interest in FSF endorsement.
I reject any prioritizing which would not involve the only new libre software mainboard
around and riscv. Riscv being maybe the only road to getting libre software consumer
electronics.
> As for crowdfunding campaigns, they should focus on promoting the ones that are most promising and will have the most benefit to the free software movement.
You are aware you can buy the talos 2 computer?
> Hopefully it is in the future of EOMA68.
Rather in a variety of computers.
> Thanks for the link.
Nice if
fsf would have told you about the computer? Fsf has to prioritize.
> Where did you read this?
I do not have documentation. I probably read it on this forum. To my knowledge
Ruben Rodriguez is employed by the fsf. Partly to work on trisquel.
> You seem to think that the FSF has a lot of money
Back up your claim.
> It would be hypocrisy to use a distro you don't recommend to others
Should fsf decide to install a not recommended libre software system
on their computer one would ask why? Because there is a valid
reason. There is no trisquel or other fsf recommended powerpc sytem image.
Porting would not be viable.
In general I cannot see a situation where a fsf employee installing
a not fsf recommended libre software system could be a matter
of hypocrisy. Why install it without having a reason?
> the FSF does not recommend Debian, regardless of configuration.
Not recommending is not advising against.
> Telling people what you think they should or shouldn't do does not limit their freedom.
No. If you assume some people might follow your recommendations, in
my opinion, requires you to limit your recommendations.
> Money doesn't grow on trees.
Your first argument about talos computers being expensive. Also your best one?
> which is completely unnecessary
Ignoring my arguments. Stating no counter arguments.
> Money spent putting TALOS computers in FSF facilities, is money that could be better spent somewhere else.
Your opinion. Regarding a crowd funding it would be people's decision. Regarding fsf
buying a 5000usd talos 2 lite computer I listed my arguments. Do you have others
apart from the pc cards?
> Like, for example, you could buy hundreds of …
I agree. You should suggest a crowd funding to fsf. They are progressive and
I am sure fsf will approve.
There is no reason not having crowd fundings for both.
> Right. If you compare the finances between the FSF and
Microsoft, the FSF's …
Irrelevant regarding my talos 2 suggestions.
> So it behooves us to make sure that freedom is affordable
I agree.
If you argue talos computers are expensive and you cannot buy one
it seems you do not want fsf to have one either? I disagree.
It is narrow minded and self centered. I want as many as
possible to get a talos computer. Every talos computer is
telling intel, amd, arm, we are going against you. We do
not want your hardware and we have options.
I have some general remarks about the talos computers.
I am not in favor of the talos computers. I find them
expensive. An eatx mainboard probably does not fit in an atx
cabinet. It is not a notebook. Powerpc isa is inconvinient. Still I want
as many talos computers manufactored as possible. Because
it is not about me. It is about libre software. Raptorcs
is what we have.
In an email to me raptorcs wrote, we are not going to manufacture
any piece of hardware which is not able to run entirely on
libre software. It is a strong message. At least I read it as
raptorcs will not manufacture hardware requiring non libre
software. I do not think it makes it easier for raptorcs.
I do not remember but I think raptorcs wrote in an
email, that they know about riscv. If raptorcs is willing
to manufacture riscv hardware it is another
argument in favor of raptorcs.
I am probably overrating fsf's influence and impact. A
person who considers getting a libre software
server could make the decision knowing fsf has one. More people
would now the computer if fsf would talk about it.
I found this list.
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/changelog
Is this what fsf is doing?
Fsf cannot make a list telling concretely who is
doing what?
This is not about recommending. It is about advising against.
By explaining the freedom problems with Debian GNU/Linux, https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html somehow advises against it. As a whole ("Debian main" is not a distribution). As the page explains "the [nonfree] repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily find these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database and its wiki". And other problems are listed. For instance, "the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware files for the peripherals on the machine" and "Debian's wiki includes pages about installing nonfree firmware".
Yes, no reason in Stallman's words to do anything for the only new libre software mainboard.
As you I already told you:
FSF servers all have KGPE-D16 motherboards, which are supported by Libreboot and are RYF certified. They all run Trisquel, which is 100% free software.
https://trisquel.info/forum/fsf-will-not-buy-talos-mainboard-which-libre-software-tell-your-opinion#comment-132818
Here is a reference: https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw
So, no, Talos II is not "the only new libre software mainboard".
The hardware in the eoma pc card was not intended to be libre software complying.
Yes, it was. The first card that https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop proposes (the "Libre Tea Computer Card") uses the FSF-endorsed Parabola distribution and is currently under evaluation to be RYF-certified. Luke (EOMA68's developer) sent a card to the FSF and asked for that certification. He even promises on https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop that "a full refund will be available if certification is for some reason not granted". The FSF already declared on https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/support-the-libre-tea-computer-card-a-candidate-for-respects-your-freedom-certification that it is "confident that [the developers'] plans are to create a device that can achieve our Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certification".
If that is a fact it is a matter of discrimination. Why promote the pc card and
not talos mainboards?
The FSF has already promoted the Talos II. Twice:
- https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/support-the-talos-secure-workstation-by-december-15th-1
- https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/support-the-talos-ii-a-candidate-for-respects-your-freedom-certification-by-pre-ordering-by-september-15
Blatantly ignoring what I wrote. (...) Ignoring my arguments. Stating no counter arguments.
Lol.
> By explaining the ...
The most relevant website on this matter is
https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html
It says what is important is that people install libre software. If you know what
you are doing fsf has no objections should you install debian. Fsf only
says, fsf is not going to recommend debian because the general public may not
be skilled enough to avoid getting non libre software on a debian computer.
Fsf knows how to avoid non libre software on a debian computer.
> As a whole ("Debian main" is not a distribution
Of no importance. I assume if you install debian from the powerpc iso
you get a libre software system. You only get non libre software on
the computer if you select non libre software.
> Here is a reference: https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw
I displayed the link in my first post.
> The FSF has already promoted the Talos II. Twice
I do not know why I did not notice. I searched for talos in the fsf news rss I get from
from fsf and found nothing. Fsf was right in promoting it. Fsf did so
countering Stallman's point of view. It appears haphazarded and without no
plan how fsf has dealt with the talos 2 computer. I would have liked to
show Stallman the links.
Fsf should also promote the talos 2 computer which has a power9 cpu.
Fsf should promote every libre software computer. Fsf should
buy at least one of each libre software computer. I do not think
ryf certification is enough.
> So, no, Talos II is not "the only new libre software mainboard".
I asked asus. Asus said manufacturing of the ASUS KGPE-D16 stopped 2017. Eventually sellers cannot sell the mainboard as new, only as unused. Then
the talos 2 computer is the only new libre software computer. Importantly
all the source software about the talos computers is made available by the
manufacturer. None of the libreboot computers are. They were not intended
to be libre software computers.
> Yes, it was
No. You are able to read what I wrote wrongly. The manufacturer of the
cpu did not make all the cpu's source software available.
I am a translator!
>the general public may not be skilled enough to avoid getting non libre software on a debian computer.
That's just ridiculous. It's free by default and to add the contrib and non-free one would need to be sufficiently skilled to know they need to edit /etc/apt/sources.list and add them. That takes skills, so it goes against the "not skilled enough to avoid getting non libre software". Rather it is "skilled enough to get non-free software", which is the opposite. Furthermore, one can not add those "accidentally".
The same applies to any approved distro, but in reverse: if one wants to install proprietary software on say Trisquello, they will succeed, and very easily so.
Or do they refer to the absurd argument of "look we take Firefox, add a new logo and then restrict the addons you can install from its addons menu"?
And how about the ultramegaton of proprietary and very nasty javashit the non-skilled users happily execute on their fsf approved distro via their autistically restricted safe and cool libre logo browser?
What freedom? Approve what?
Free yourself from concepts like "approved by someone else that knows what's better for me" and understand that freedom does not come from outside but rather it is your own decision, your own rejection of non-freedom.
tonlee:
I think you have many cool arguments, and to be honestI didn't really read your OP.
But I read your last reply here where you argumented back and I would just like to say that I think you have many good and valid points and I think the raptor thing sounds cool
No one was able to display a link to a fsf website which thoroughly tells what fsf
prioritizes, how resources are spend on each priority, what results are achieved?
On their website Fsf should tell in detail about the hardware and software it
uses. It could encourage readers to want to get the hardware and software.