Making the radeon kernel module work again
Thanks to Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli for his patch [0] to make the radeon kernel module work again in free distros and not just fall over and die when the proprietary firmware isn't there. I've made these changes to Linux-libre version 4.1.4 in my APT repository. If you have such a card you may want to look into this in order to have proper screen resolution, etc. I've talked to quidam about getting it into the Trisquel kernel. Hopefully that will be part of Trisquel 7.1.
In the meantime, information about using the repository can be found at https://jxself.org/linux-libre/
[0] http://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2015-July/003080.html
I am a translator!
SANTO SUBITO! +1
so much for a blob free kernel. Can't you just make a separate kernel for users who need radeon driver? Or is that unrealistic.
Why do you want a separate kernel? That doesn't make any sense.
What do you mean? jxself provides the community with an APT repository of linux-libre which is deblobbed. His post was informing us he has updated it to include GNUtoo's patch to restore support for the radeon module.
"so much for a blob free kernel"
This patch does not introduce a blob, nor enable the loading of them, so I do not understand your comment.
So its just proprietary then?
I compiled my own kernel today with grsecurity from a fsfla.org source, and its running great. Tks for the push. I'm amazed I didn't even have to change any headers on the wm or dm with trisquel, a first for me. there was no issues at all, except header changes needed for compiz and abrowser. i love this distro lol.
No, it works around a problem in Radeon which has recently prevented it from working at all without the binary blobs needed for 3-D, for most Radeon GPUs, resulting in a fall-back to VESA which couldn't know the appropriate resolution of the monitor. There's nothing proprietary here.
"So its just proprietary then?"
No. I'm about as likely to distribute proprietary software as RMS is to buy an iPhone. Why do you just assume there must be proprietary software? Where do you get your information from? Do you just make it up? You have to be, because if you were to actually examine the patch (which clearly you have not done) you would see that no proprietary software is involved and you're just making up allegations that can't actually be backed up by the facts: The only change that is made is turning some stuff into a conditional so that when the proprietary firmware is not present (which will always be the case in a free distro) the radeon module doesn't just fall over and die like it used to but it instead continues on working without it. It essentially breaks the dependency it had on the firmware so it can work without it. Working without it. Get it? But then again, you'd know this if you'd actually looked at the patch before slinging allegations around.
Lembda has explained it and I'll take his word for it. I don't read code and I didn't read the license. Your stance on privacy and security was made evident on irc, hence my skepticism. I won't be using your kernels anymore, but tks for the hard work none the less.
Stop trolling cooloutac. Jxself isn't distributing anything with proprietary software. If you actually looked at GNUtoo's patch (which isn't very big) you would know this. But instead, you'll continue to accuse jxself of distributing proprietary software.
Telling me, a noob, to go read the code myself, when i already told you I don't know how on irc, is typical for some linux users to feed their ego.
All anyone had to say is what lembas or onpon said. Its longer non free, a non-free module is no longer required for radeon. simple. I would of said great, my mistake. I'm not the one trolling here....
You don't need to be able to read code to understand this patch. If you see the line "Skipping firmware loading" that's all you need to know. I don't understand the code much either. Anyway, good that you understand now.
Telling me, a noob, to go read the code myself, when i already told you I don't know how on irc, is typical for some linux users to feed their ego.
He told you not to accuse him of distributing proprietary software unless you can prove it. To prove it, you need to read the source code. If you cannot read the source code, just don't make any claim on its freeness.
"So its just proprietary then? "
looks like a question to me.
All he had to do was answer it like lembas and onpon did. I shouldn't be told to read anything, thats a stuckup reply.
"Your stance on privacy and security was made evident on irc, hence my skepticism."
That was only about the primary reason for using free software. For you, I understand that the primary reasons for you to use it is over privacy and security. For me, the primary reasons are the social, ethical and political issues. That does not mean privacy and security aren't important, only that they are not my primary reason for using free software. (As an example, I would use an free program with major security holes over a proprietary one that didn't have those security holes because the freedom is the more important aspect.) Besides, free software was started for social, ethical, and political reasons - not technical ones - but I understand from IRC that you reject this.
I'm more about the practical real tangible reasons. Thats what I love so much about this distro, You can tell that the devs are realy down to earth and thats all they care about too, whats practical. Not whats popular or socially acceptable or politically correct.
When you say something is unethical, or that freedom is important, that leaves open the question as to why. And if you can't even explain the answer to that question yourself, people will think you don't understand your own position and will have a hard time respecting it or taking it seriously.
The reason why its unethical for someone else to have control over the software I own, is not only about licenses. Its the fact it could potentially be used for malcious purposes without my knowledge or against my own wishes. And it matters not if its the gov't, a corporation, or simply a malicious hacker. It all relates to turning me into a product someone else can gain from, or something that can be used against me in any way. That is the primary reason for me use free software.
"I'm more about the practical real tangible reasons."
"You can tell that the devs are realy down to earth and thats all they care about too"
The Trisquel founder, Rubén, is a good friend of mine and I think I can speak for him that he's also into the social, ethical and political issues too.
"Its the fact it could potentially be used for malcious purposes without my knowledge or against my own wishes"
That's very true. My position is that having cooperating communities is important so that you can have these abilities and this is why free software is important. Those communities will, naturally, take care of their own privacy and security through the normal course of going about things... but only as long as they exist. This is why their existence is important. (Their existence is constantly attacked by proprietary software developers.)
So we're really on the same side: For 100% free software. Just for different underlying reasons. That doesn't warrant accusing someone of distributing proprietary software when, by your own admission, you didn't even read the code to understand what was happening. Rather, you immediately jumped to "so much for a blob free kernel" without even asking and others had to jump in and correct you. It's sad we're having this discussion when we're really both on the same side of 100% free software.
Doing something just to be politically correct amongst your peers is not what a leader does or is something I would agree with for the sake of it, or even respect. Again.... social, ethical and political, are subjective words without tangible meanings. You have to learn to define them so other people can understand exactly what you stand for, so they know you are not just a naive loony lost in the clouds.
When you say privacy and security are not the main reasons to use free software but tell me its for ethical reasons, thats exactly what people will think of you.
When i suggest people in the irc room to use apparmor, and you tell them its a program that only gets in their way, I already know where you stand security. With people like you in the community, it doesn't matter how open the code is, because security is the enemy and always an after thought to you, in a world that keeps getting more and more maliciously hacked. To me privacy and security, are the main definitions of those social, ethical and political words you use to describe the evils of non free software, until you tell me otherwise.
Doing something just to be politically correct amongst your peers is not what a leader does or is something I would agree with for the sake of it, or even respect.
Can't you even consider that Jason simply agrees with Rubén?!
Again.... social, ethical and political, are subjective words without tangible meanings.
Look those words up in a dictionary. You will have their meanings.
As for the specifics of what he (and probably most of Trisquel users) stands for, Jason has already proposed you to take a look at GNU's manifesto: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
With people like you in the community, it doesn't matter how open the code is, because security is the enemy
Jason wrote: "That does not mean privacy and security aren't important". Clearly not "the enemy".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethical
^ meaningless and only leaves open questions. Why is it immoral, why is it wrong? One should be able to express oneself if they want anybody else to believe them.
The reason Jxself is using such vague undefined reasoning, is because besides the freedom of sharing knowledge with others, He knows the other reasons to use free software all boil down to privacy and security, whether rms believes that or not, and he doesn't want to admit that. Because to him and rms, security takes away their "freedoms". Which is another way of saying security is too hard for them.
He knows the other reasons to use free software all boil down to privacy and security
That is not true. If a program does not do what we want (bugs, missing feature), we want to be free to address the problem (both individually and collectively). The problem is not necessarily a security issue. We consider that any user deserves to be in control of the work she achieves through computing. The freedom to modify programs is a necessary part of it. Why do we consider that "any user deserves to be in control of the work she achieves through computing"? Because it is the right thing. It is ethics. It does not need to be explained. It is a principle.
Because its the "right thing" its "ethics" lol...... this why most of society can't take your movement seriously or respect it. Its own members can't express its own ideas and values...and don't even realize when they are contradicting it and being hypocrites.
So to you, free software, is about being able to fix bugs and missing features? thats the most important thing? Well every bug is a potential malicious exploit. And i'm sorry, but adding missing features to programs are not why I'm using trisquel. In fact i just gave up alot of features in the name of security to be able to use a grsec kernel lol. If thats what deemed most important, the free software movement is not for me it seems.
"thats the most important thing?"
"And i'm sorry, but adding missing features to programs are not why I'm using trisquel."
Sure, people have their own reasons for using free software. And like in any sufficiently large mix of people there will be disagreement over what's important. Even if it's true, why must you go on and continue calling people hypocrites and etc.? Surely you can accept that there are people out there in the world with different values and priorities than you? That people won't be as "good" as you are? Do you find some sort of enjoyment in putting people down with such comments? Please stop. This entire thing has gone too far already.
Saying you are representing trisquel, when you don't even use trisquel, or saying you represent free software, when you use proprietary drivers...Is not only hypocritical, its suspicious. And whether trying to convince people turn away from it, or being too ashamed to promote trisquel to others or NOT, these individuals hurt the respectability of the community more then anything. NO matter how much they pretend otherwise.
And No I don't mean you personally Jxself. You should know who these people are. You on the other hand can't express why trisquel is important, and may seem to be contradicting yourself when you calim privacy and security are less important. and not the "main"reason to use free software. Again you are also alienating people, or losing the respect of people with such comments, from those who might actually want to use it. Controlling your own software and sharing knowledge to fix bugs or improve software, both encomopass security to me, I don't see it any less important then w/e else you value as "ethical"
> saying you represent free software, when you use proprietary drivers...Is not only hypocritical, its suspicious.
I'm going to call bullshit here. Using a proprietary driver while saying that proprietary software is bad is not necessarily hypocritical. There could be all sorts of reasons for using a proprietary program even when you wish to avoid doing so. Context matters.
Most of us use computers that run proprietary software at the level of the boot loader which is actually quite dangerous, myself included (though my laptop being from Think Penguin, it's probably not quite as dangerous as most systems out there). Even RMS used a computer which had a proprietary BIOS for some time before he finally found one which supported a libre BIOS. Does that make him a hypocrite? No! It's just that the fact of computing today is it's incredibly difficult to run no proprietary software at all. In this imperfect world, we often have to make compromises. Compromises that mostly harm ourselves, mind you, so it's not even unethical for us to make these choices.
And "suspicious"? What ulterior motive could you possibly expect people to have to run software that mistreats them? It's like saying you're "suspicious" of a person who says he is against indentured servitude, and yet is an indentured servent himself because economic circumstances required it of him. You're vilifying the wrong person.
Developing proprietary software is denying the users freedoms they deserve. The developer is the bad guy. The user is the victim. A user may depend on proprietary software (I depend on a proprietary BIOS for instance), be aware that this software harms her and criticize its developers for that reason. That does not make her a hypocrite. She is a victim.
Because its the "right thing" its "ethics" lol...... this why most of society can't take your movement seriously or respect it.
Respect people that have no ethics and do "wrong" if you think that they are more serious...
Its own members can't express its own ideas and values...
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html (initial pointers; there is much more to read).
So to you, free software, is about being able to fix bugs and missing features?
No. As I wrote above: "we consider that any user deserves to be in control of the work she achieves through computing". Four freedoms (including the freedom to modify the program) achieve that goal: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Explain why you think the user should be in control of their own software.
I have explained why I think they should, whats is YOUR reasoning? and please don't link me something or simply tell me its the right thing to do. Because I have apparently interpreted all the rms videos and gnu documentation wrong. I keep giving you my interpretation of why sharing software and controlling it yourself is "ethical", but for some reason you disagree for no reason.
If you want to correct me, do it in your OWN words. Otherwise you're a poser or someone wants to be different for the sake of it. Otherwise you stand for something that has no real meaning society can understand.
If this statement Jxself linked: "Because I don't believe that it's really desirable to have security on a computer, I shouldn't be willing to help uphold the security regime."" defines the free software movement? WHich, definitely explains why Jxself made the comments he did, I want nothing to do with it. But that is not how i interpret later videos or documenation. If that is indeed how the free software movement feels, then its definitely naive, will not help society in this day and age, and I would not want to promote that idea or associate with it.
Explain why you think the user should be in control of their own software.
I already did. Anyone deserves the control of her own work. It simply is right, an ethical stance. You pretend it is not serious but try to explain why you deserve privacy and you will see it boils down to ethics as well.
I keep giving you my interpretation of why sharing software and controlling it yourself is "ethical", but for some reason you disagree for no reason.
I disagree when you write that "reasons to use free software all boil down to privacy and security". It is not true and I gave you the freedom to correct a bug or to add a feature as an example.
If you want to correct me, do it in your OWN words. Otherwise you're a poser who wants to be different for the sake of it.
I cannot express my own thoughts better than many brilliant people before me. And I have better things to do than waste my time arguing with trolls. References solve both problems.
Otherwise you stand for something that has no real meaning society can understand.
On the contrary. The links we gave you are crystal clear. If you would made the effort to read them, you would see.
1. When you say "their own work" that can be interpreted that they are more deserving/entitled then someone who did not work on said software themselves at all and simply want to just use and have full control over it. And shame on you for implying that. I don't think it gets more contradictory to what the free software movement is all about then that.
2. As far as fixing bugs, I said and say to that, any bug can be a possible malicious exploit, even if just 1 byte.
3. The bible can be interpreted many different ways. What I find astonishing is why you would deem your reasons for wanting to have full control over the software you own, with the the options or ability to modify and share it with others, more important or more "ethical, then another persons good intentions and reasoning for wanting those same things.
1. I am talking about the work achieved *with* the software. Like writing a document with LibreOffice.
2. Many bugs are no security threat. Yet users want them fixed.
3. You do not get it. Security and privacy are features. The free software movement is not about specific features. See my post in the other thread.
1. why would someones document writen with libreoffice be licensed to someone else? And if you believe it should be free, well then what if I didn't write it, but want to use and distribute it? get it? am I less entitled because its not my work? "Anyone deserves the control of her own work" speaks for it self what you meant.
2. I don't how many times i have to say it, but any bug has a potential to be a security exploit, even if not known to be exploited before its fixed.
3. If its not about specific features, then there is no reason to tell someone their reason is not the main reason for using them. Any reason is a reason to use free software. This talk about "ethics" comes off self righteous nonsense for the sake of argument and to feed ones ego. It really needs to stop unless the movement wants to get even more alienate and less popular.
1. I am not talking about the licensing of the document. I do not know if you are trolling or sincerely do not understand. Again: someone who does her work (e.g., write documents) through a computer program (e.g., LibreOffice) deserves the control of her work, hence on the computer program she uses. She is in control if and only if the program is free software.
2. And "I don't how many times I have to say it" but that is not true. I am a developer, whereas you wrote that you cannot read source code. Yesterday, for instance, I corrected a benign bug that made a warning be printed on the error output in incorrect situations. And the program is not even using the network in any way. You cannot exploit such a bug. If you have not learned, then you should acknowledge your ignorance. If you want to learn about security bugs, you can start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_bug#Taxonomy : "Security bugs generally fall into a fairly *small* number of broad categories ...".
3. It is ethics that started the whole movement and make it popular. I see no reason for users being put off by a speech that focuses on empowering them in their computing lives. Only a small number of cynical people like you think that having an ethics is ridiculous.
Here we go again.... "control of her work" work= documents written in libre office. Do you read what you say? how did i misinterpret that? How would using MS word be any different for you? 1. the MS WOrd is MS's hard "work" 2. She would have no less control over "her work" when using word compared to libreoffice. Please explain the difference. I've told you what the difference is to me, but yet you deem that less important.
And am I less entitled since I did no work on anything?
3. you can't even define what makes something "unethical" So I can't take you seriously. Its meaningless. Its a false argument. To say privacy and security are not important enough reasons to use free software compared to "ethics" is not only contradictory, Its self righteous and only for the sake of argument. And I can't believe how you don't see that comes of bigoted, keeps free software unpopular and loses respect for your community.
1. Microsoft deserves the control of the development on MS Office, i.e., I hope (for Microsoft) that this development only happens with software that Microsoft controls. In the same way, the user of MS Office deserves the control of the work she achieves with Microsoft office. An editing work this time, not a development work. With MS Office, she does not have this control over her own work. Microsoft controls the software and, through the software, controls the user. That is not right. Developing proprietary software is not right.
2. On the contrary, a user of LibreOffice is in control of on her editing work. She can use the program as she wishes (is MS Office's license still prohibiting the use of the software to criticize Microsoft?), she can study the source code to verify that the program does what she wishes (no spyware for instance), she can modify the program so that it does what she wishes (correct a bug for instance) and she can redistribute exact or modified versions of the program to help her neighbor (MS Office's license attacks the social solidarity).
3. You can't gives reasons to principles. By definition. Yet principles are essential. They are the starting points of any argumentation.
1. How does she not have control over her own work? Explain? How are they controlling her through the program, any examples? Of course developing proprietary software is not right, because it can be used maliciously by the company. For example, logging keystrokes, spying on data, monitoring computer habits, selling this data to data brokers or ad agencies..etc But these things are not as important to you as "ethics" which you claim is different and can't even explain why. To me they are the same.
2. MS's office license does not license any work she creates with it. Thats a ridiculous statement. Regarding, her correcting bugs in the program she uses to create her work, again I say that can fall under "security" and is just as important as feature usability.
3. You have to define your principles otherwise they are just false self righteous bigoted arguments. To me the reasons for wanting to be able to share software and have full control over software you own, is common sense. And any reasons for wanting that are not more important then another. But apparently you people claim otherwise, and by doing so hurt your own movement.
1. I explained and gave examples.
2. I never wrote that Microsoft has the copyright on every document created with MS Office. I explained how Microsoft controls copies of its software and, through them, its users.
3. For the nth times: principles need no explanation. By definition.
You have explained nothing, I'm the one that gave you examples, which you deem less important then "ethics" When to me they are what defines "ethics".
2. you only claim they control its users. I gave you examples of how, yet you deem those less imporant then Fixing bugs which = security, and adding features. But failing to give an example of what features are prohibited.
3. when you explain nothing you stand for nothing.
Principles are things which, by their very nature, need no prior reasoning.
They are things that can be identified as being instinctively right. There is
no real 'reason' as such that people should be allowed to have control over
their own computing- there is of course the potential for abuse through the
licensing of the software, but primarily it is the principle which guides the
theory.
If you apply the reasoning you outlined in 3, no-one stands for anything
because all arguments essentially boil to principle and instinctive morality.
You only care about free software (or should I say, 'open source') because it
guarantees its users privacy and security. Now why should people have privacy?
You'll find that that too boils down to principle, something which cannot be
rationalised beyond the instinctive good attached to it.
Do you not understand this? You cannot 'explain' principles (that is, provide
objective reasoning as to why they should be carried through). You can only
accept or reject them, and then build arguments on those assumptions.
I challenge you to apply your own reasoning to yourself. Give me a single
reason that people should have privacy which does not involve a principle of
some sort.
Very wrong, that is not much more i can say. But you would need to explain your principles if you want people to agree with them.
many philosphers believe man is born evil, and learns to be good. Children in the sandbox must learn how to share. I believe the same applies to civilization as a whole, as the human race evolves and ages we get more civilized. But it is something that is taught and learned over time.
As far as you not believing that explaining why we should have privacy and security is possible, I have to just laugh at you being disingenuous or your possible ignorance., and then refer you to my previous posts where i gave examples of exactly why it is indeed necessary. I refer you to the post where i was corrected on "stasi's in nazi germany" where i gave many examples why. Easily explained.
I also once again refer members to the GNU's definition of why proprietary software is "unethical"
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html
And if you think you don't have to teach people what your movement is all about, and think they should just take your word that something is "Right" for the sake of it. Well then you are not only naive and delusional, your movement will also be a failure.
Ultimately, there is no objective reason that anything should happen a particular way in the universe. I'm sorry, but you can't ever possibly objectively say that any way for a society to run is correct. It's all about our instincts and morals, in the end.
Food for thought: I'd wager to guess that you would be opposed to, say, a totalitarian monarchy where everyone but the queen works as a slave for the rest of his or her life, the men being forced to help the queen produce offspring and the females being forced to forage for food and build ever-larger monuments. I think you would be right to call such a system unethical. And yet, this is entirely normal for most ants.
All kinds of things we humans would never permit due to our sense of morals are perfectly normal or even necessary for other animals. A few ant species base their survival on murdering the queen of another ant colony and enslaving its workers. Cuckoo birds are placed in the nests of other bird species, where they then destroy the unhatched eggs legitimately laid by the nest maker and trick said nest maker into acting like its mother. The list goes on.
Ultimately, it simply isn't objectively correct that any given society shouldn't be a run totalitarian, oppressive dictatorship. The only way we can say anything is wrong is with our sense of empathy, which we instinctively formulate into principles, morals, and ethics.
Wrong, again, man is born evil, he learns to be good. Most of our instincts are animal. What is your definition of good? Thats what needs to be explained, and thats what gets learned.
The most simple definition, is something that doesn't hurt others is good. If it hurts others its bad. But not everything is that black and white. Some people might not even know when they are hurting another human being. Sometimes its unintentional due to a lack of education. Some people don't even have a sense of right and wrong even as adults. They need to be taught like children in a sandbox. Some people don't care. But I'm optimistic because I think as civilization grows, just like a child growing, we become more civilized. Right now we are in the wild west, or more like the barbarian stages of the internet, but I think it will be come more civilized in the future.
But when it comes to how proprietary software can be unethical and misused, here are some examples:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html
Some examples of why invasion of privacy can be hurtful to others i'll just keep repeating to show how easy it is to explain:
"For example, The same way the stasi in nazi germany used seemingly innocent information to blackmail people into doing things that would hurt others in their communities. Because things we do in private should sometimes stay private because it could lead to endangering others physical well being or hurt them mentally, when it is unnecessary and taken out of context or misunderstood. Because I don't believe users should be treated as a product unknowingly for others gain, whether monetary or not, for all the above reasons. People are not property or products, and treating them as such can stall our human evolution, which hurts our well being"
Again to claim your philosophy or point of view doesn't have to explained, because it should be automatically understood, is not only naive and delusional, its a cop out and shameful. And shows your lack of understanding of human nature.
> man is born evil, he learns to be good
What you describe here is a psychopath, not a typical human. I think there's a period in everyone's life where empathy is lacking, but the acquisition of empathy is brain development, not learning.
> The most simple definition, is something that doesn't hurt others is good. If it hurts others its bad. But not everything is that black and white.
Again, why? There's no objective answer in the end. I don't know if you could come up with an objective answer to this one; I couldn't, the best I could come up with is "because I don't want to be harmed". (By the way, interesting to note: that doesn't universally apply. See masochism.) So, empathy. Codified by morals, ethics, and principles.
What I describe there is every human child.
Asking why hurting others is bad, is something children have to learn the answer to as well. Are you really asking for an explanation or is this rhetorical like I assume? I'd be happy to give one though. Because pain is a tangible real feeling. Its not a philosophy, its physical, its biological. It not an idea, its real. Noone likes it, its part of being a human being. And the reason we are taught not to cause pain to others, is because it can come back on ourselves and cause us pain. It can come back and cause pain for our friends and families.
And So we don't drift too far off topic, Regarding why proprietary software is "unethical". I've given many explanations why for me it relates to privacy and security. Which is not any less imporant then the ability to share information. And I even linked GNU's own philosphy page on prop software, which also relates to privacy ans security. And i've given many tangible examples of why we need privacy and security for oneself.
If you are still trying to debate me on why "ethics", regarding prop software, is not related to or more important than privacy and security. Its time to give it up. Because Even the fsf would disagree with you. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html
> Asking why hurting others is bad, is something children have to learn the answer to as well.
It was never explained to me. I figured that out on my own. Probably around the same time I developed empathy.
> Because pain is a tangible real feeling. Its not a philosophy, its physical, its biological.
Ahem...
Pain is a signal your brain uses to convince you to defend yourself. It's not "tangible". It's facilitated by your nervous system and communicated by electrical signals.
There are people who have disorders that prevent them from feeling pain. Such people have a much lower life expectancy than most, because they're completely oblivious to even the most severe of injuries.
The only thing that's "tangible" is damage to a person. Well, some damage is permanent, some will heal. There's a whole lot of people who like to either inflict or have inflicted to them damage of the latter type. But then, there are people who like to do the former type of damage to themselves! You know, when people do things to reshape parts of their bodies (e.g. noses, breasts).
So, your reasoning is nonsense to begin with, because it suggests that hacking the limbs off of certain people is fine because they can't feel it is acceptable. Or that stabbing people is acceptable if you give them an anesthetic first. But even if we try to look at it from a more reasonable angle, damage, it's still a preposterous measurement. Are you suggesting that practitioners of BDSM and surgeons performing wanted nose jobs are unethical? What a silly standard to go by.
And even ignoring all of that, there is no objective reason why hurting people or causing damage to them is bad! It's, again, all down to empathy, morals, ethics, and principles.
> Noone likes it [pain]
LOL
> And So we don't drift too far off topic
HA!
> If you are still trying to debate me on why "ethics", regarding prop software, is not related to or more important than privacy and security. Its time to give it up. Because Even the fsf would disagree with you. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html
And here you are, still misrepresenting what the FSF says. Well done!
> you learned empathy. You can't empathize without understanding another persons shoes. This is not knowledge you are born with or sense with your animal instincts. Silly to argue otherwise....lmao Some people never learn.
> The point is, pain is not an idea. Its a real scientifical fact. It is a concrete feeling every human has at birth, unlike ideas and philosophies, that need to be explained and learned.
>The only thing you keep ignoring, are my examples of why privacy and security are important to onself. And its Because they disprove your belief that they are unexplainable things that every human just automatically knows. They are explainable, and one should explain them if he wants others to understand their importance. Its not knowlege you are born with, just like empathy isn't.
> You are the ones misrepresenting what the FSF stands for and thats why your distro and movement are very unpopular. You come off as egotistical self righteous hypocrites. Look at you right now arguing with me for the sake of it. Arguing "ethics' is diff then Privacy and Security, which is the same thing. which are not less important reasons to use free software then any other reasons. And this link https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary.html confirms it by describing ways and methods proprietary software can potentially violate privacy and security. A whole page dedicated to it. Yet you are claiming otherwise, with of course NO EXPLANATION WHY. lol And I bet you would say, its not something that can be explained, and still expect anyone to take you seriously....
> It is a concrete feeling every human has at birth
You mean, except for the ones who can't feel pain, because their nervous systems are defective?
You know, I'm bored of this. And the posts are getting squeezed into the right. (Seriously, this forum really shouldn't do that; it would be better to just sort the posts by post time.)
yes, except for those...lol
I'm sure you are running out of things to argue against...