The FSF's statement on Windows 10
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
"The Free Software Foundation urges everyone to reject Windows 10 and join us in the world of free software. Like all proprietary software, Windows 10 puts those that use it under the thumb of its owner. Free software like the GNU/Linux operating system treats users as equals and gives them control over their digital lives."
Source:
It's kinda sad that there isn't a snazzy graphical site like they had for Win8. :p
Nice statement, though.
I hardly pay attention to new Window$ releases anymore but here's an article about the privacy issues: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/31/windows-10-microsoft-faces-criticism-over-privacy-default-settings
name at domain wrote:
> I hardly pay attention to new Windows releases anymore but here's an
> article about the privacy issues:
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/31/windows-10-microsoft-faces-criticism-over-privacy-default-settings
The Guardian was one of the organizations publishing Snowden's
revelations. But here they're apparently either naïve or they're
corporate repeaters bolstering the latest freedom-denying software (see
https://stallman.org/skype.html for reasons not to use Skype and, by
extension, any nonfree software). Perhaps both.
This is an instance of what Noam Chomsky said in "The Common Good":
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly
> limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively
> debate within that spectrum.
Any discussion of software freedom is outside the allowable limits of
debate, so we get a large collection of articles about what preferences
to change, what users can opt out of, or what users have told a
proprietor they do/don't want (a gratis card game that comes with an OS,
for example). None of these discussions in any way challenge authority,
achieve user privacy, or software freedom. But the amount of coverage
and the technocratic substance of each gives the impression that using
the software can be done well if one is 'wise' to incorporate certain
behaviors first.
Do you want this thread to go off topic and turn into another flame war?
It seems like you want it to.
If you want to discuss that specific example further, go to the "Troll Hole."
no one here is stopping you discussing it
but as its unrelated to the fsf's statement on windows 10
please use the Troll Hole
Trying to stop someone from making an obsolete argument!
Get real people!
SO WHAT HAPPENS know, Specially when the "righteous" are already using the forum to advertize EXPENSIVE cheap skullcap items?
I completely agree with you. The emphasis is kept on unimportant issues such as the "start menu".
I am a translator!
Please keep you idiotic ranting off this forum. We don't need it: Not Here and not in the troll hole.
He does have a point about the killing of civilians: http://airwars.org/civilian-casualty-claims/
However, he's going to turn this into a discussion about "marrying female children to men."
I am a translator!
>Too bad this is just over the internet. I can't get in your face and tell you to your face that I will not do as you wish
Trust me. You would be as little and gentle as a guinea pig. But yeah, find yourself a forum where a nuthead like you can feel at home. This forum is not it.
Am I the only person that's speculated as to whether or not chaos is a pedophile, and thinks that may be why he goes a step further than most religious people and says that child-adult marriage should be legal?
I think he's implied several times in the past that all men are pedophiles. Something about men being forced to marry adult women because apparently they would all marry little girls if they could. I honestly think he's just trolling.
He uses debian.
chaosesqueteam
I probably would ZAP you for good! WITHOUT HESITATION AND REMORSE! Just for GP!
Lets see who will be first, to the draw....
People have gotten it into their heads that Windows Vista and Windows 8 were the "bad" ones, while Windows 7 and Windows 10 are the "good" ones. For Windows 7, it's because it was basically just Windows Vista without the popularly perceived problems (coming too early, being put on hardware that couldn't handle it well). For Windows 10, it's because the Start menu returned, or became the default again, or something like that.
Keep in mind that Windows 7 was the worst one at the point it was released, too. Microsoft is gradually getting people used to a design that attacks them more, and the outrage people are having over trivial little things like the Start screen are only helping to distract people from it, though it's probably not intentional. Because people hated Windows 8, Microsoft can say, "Hey, people who hate Windows 8! We're sorry we made such a huge design mistake, and we've fixed it in Windows 10, so come along!"
Just an example of why caring about your freedom is important.
At least from what I am seeing locally, there seems to be a little bit more interest in systems other than Windows but this is most likely confirmation bias at work. I do hope that we make some progress, when these new versions of Windows (or any non-free OS) comes a long it is a great time to remind people of what they are giving up.
My preferred install procedure for Windows 10 is the same as for Windows Vista, a quick and easy two-minute procedure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVbf9tOGwno
best window$ installation video i have ever seen!
can you even get window$ 10 on a dvd?
> best window$ installation video i have ever seen!
> can you even get window$ 10 on a dvd?
hi tomlukeywood
this Forum to trisquel
not to non free(windows)
And yes, Losedows 10 comes on DVDs.
(Don't poke fun at Losedows by making the "s" an "$"-- this implies that a program with monetary motivation is bad. 'Tisnt true.)
I think the $ implies that greed is bad, which I believe is true.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120222211609/http://www.msversus.org/
There's nothing wrong with selling software, but MS's business tactics are wrong.
hi Legimet
PLZ dont put this bad links
its for windows(non free)
in Community Guidelines.
in part 2
"""
1. All of our contributions respect software freedom.
"""
Please read and follow the Community Guidelines.
http://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines
I tried it in my childhood
I did not understand anything of it
It was different from all the systems that I tried
It was strange
no root
no tty
no /.
I ran away from it after an hour
I see that there's a lot of talk around ethics/morality around free software and free culture (if this is how it's called), and there are probably a ton of different opinions representing the whole spectrum.
To me it's only a tool, not associated with specific political movements. a tool that is truly made for the user's benefit, not a scam.
At least regarding software/hardware, (one of) the lowest common denominator we all agree on is the lack of transparency, associated with a list of privacy abuse by many tech companies.
Back to the subject:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3fd9u0/windows_10_microsoft_faces_criticism_over_privacy/
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3877sf/windows_10_apps_and_features_killed_off_as/
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3f5rih/wifi_sense_vulnerability_in_windows_10_the_most/
name at domain wrote:
> To me it's only a tool, not associated with specific political
> movements. a tool that is truly made for the user's benefit, not a scam.
Then you probably don't understand how software works, what software is
capable of doing, and what role software plays in society. Therefore
software freedom is probably unfamiliar to you and you should spend some
time understanding what software freedom means so you can appreciate why
free software advocates object to proprietary software.
> At least regarding software/hardware, (one of) the lowest common
> denominator we all agree on is the lack of transparency, associated
> with a list of privacy abuse by many tech companies.
Many software proprietors will tell you in their licensing terms that
they intend to collect data about the user's computer, use of the
program, and many other things (no matter how vaguely they word their
terms). Computer users typically don't read these terms. So if users
come to learn that the programs don't respect their privacy, or don't
allow them to ever understand what the program does (should they want to
know or hire someone to work on their behalf), users learn the hard way
that they are not allowed to change that software.
Users should be taught to value their freedoms to run, inspect, share,
and modify programs even though most users aren't programmers (just as
most users of electricity aren't electricians, most users of plumbing
aren't plumbers, and so on). Educating the users is what is called for
as well as practical software that does what users need licensed to them
under strongly copylefted free software licenses that are actively
defended in court.
Maybe I could have expressed myself more clearly, because we're on the same page (for the most part).
I do disagree with proprietary software. I am a software freedom advocate.
But I agree mainly with the freedom to inspect the software. the other freedoms matter less to me, if at all.
(at least for now). Well unless they're necessary to the freedom to inspect.
I care about hardware and software transparency the same way I care about what's in my food, etc.
Proprietary software is akin to McDonalds, or GMOs. I don't need the freedom to copy the Big Mac. I just want clean food.
So I find an alternative.
If the other freedoms don't lead to the freedom to inspect, I really don't care about them (I might change my mind, but that's what I think for now).
> But I agree mainly with the freedom to inspect the software. the other freedoms matter less to me, if at all.
So, you agree with half of freedom 1, but not freedoms 2 or 3? (How about freedom 0?)
Consider this: suppose you have a program which anyone is able to inspect, but no one is permitted to modify. You would be able to find out when the software is being malicious. But what would you be able to do? Possibly nothing, if you're using tivoized hardware or if the source code is in a form you can't build; or possibly create a black market of modified, non-malicious versions of the software. Either way, it would not be desirable; you would have a really hard time pressuring the company which can legally make the changes do so, and at best a really hard time fixing it for yourself (and you would be possibly risking a lawsuit to do so).
As onpon4 said, you need the four freedoms to properly inspect--
Freedom zero is the freedom to run the program for whatever purpose. This allows you to observe back-doors, etc.
Freedom one is the freedom to study and modify the program. This allows you to identify and remove malicious features in the source-code.
Freedom two is the freedom to redistribute the program, verbatim.
Freedom three is the freedom to redistribute modified versions of the program. This allows you to give others non-malicious versions of the program.
Without all four, you can't inspect and make sure the program does what you want it to do.
For example...
Without freedom zero, perhaps it could be illegal for you to run the program for the purpose of identifying holes. (It is commonly easier to find security holes by running the program than reading the source code.)
Without freedom one, you wouldn't be able to do anything with the malicious program, and you'd have to deal with it.
Without freedom three, you would be the only one with a non-malicious version of the program. You wouldn't be able to help anyone else.
Thanks for the clarification. They're definitely necessary.
I probably mixed up my feelings with imprecise information (my bad), hence my previous comments.
It's just that I'm kind of put off by some comments that are not related to computing and privacy, but to somehow extending the idea of the 4 freedoms to the political domain.
Legal, I understand that it's directly related.
Political, not so specifically. To me it better suits a subforum, but to each his own. I'm just stating an opinion.
I have to admit that i'm naïvely assuming that a malicious company would be out of business because of their actions being public. Recent history tells me otherwise.
My reasoning was that if they have a malicious product, they're out of business because of the justified bad press. Yeah right.
That's me underestimating the mental laziness or good old idiocy of many people (added to the power of good and large scale marketing). Plus the probable holes in the legal system.
Yet, I'm not too sure about the other freedoms. All I need to know is that a product is malicious. Then I just choose not to use it.
Of course, I'm saying that while using free software, so obviously I do agree with the 4 freedoms. Thanks to these 4, There is an alternative.
So I don't have much choice but to agree with the 4 freedoms, indeed.
Or disagree, and just not use computers.
Or write it all by myself (lol).
(fun fact: I was able to upvote myself)
-1? For what? I'm saying is that I'm AGREEING with the 4 freedoms (kinda reluctantly, but agreeing). You should read twice before taking action, whoever you are.
Yes, I'm also stating a different opinion, and it's not like my argument is offensive/trolling. So you sure can passive-agressively deal with it by downvoting (knock yourself out).
You can also deal with it with argumentation, you know, like grown-ups do. Probably a more convincing way to get your point across.
My point in a nutshell is that comments about greed (and other somewhat politically oriented comments I've seen in other threads) should be kept for the Troll Hole or something. Again, the core idea we all have in common is (I believe) protecting our privacy. I now see (with Onpon's help) the other 3 freedoms as a necessity. And if it goes beyond the subject of computing, to me it's off topic and belongs to a subforum. Privacy isn't linked to a specific political movement, it's a global issue.
I'd rather be reading about why specifically windows is a scam (you know, actual data that can be useful in a conversation) than mildly politically oriented comments (not much in this specific thread, but I can see that often).
btw, where's the moderator?
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
Exactly. Kill it with fire......
Stating that the FSF doesn't support Windows 10 is like stating that the NRA supports rifles.
Am I the Only one who has a bigger problem with Apple than Windows? The users are more snooty and anti-GNU/Linux, if they know what it is.
Apple is just as bad as Microsoft, and its operating systems are all just as bad as Windows. They're not as popular, though, except maybe for iOS. Also, you don't have the open source boosters throwing nitpicks at Apple stuff, for some reason (probably just because they've built up a bias that Windows is insecure or something, and give OS X a free pass because it's Unix).
I wouldn't say a bigger problem (since it's it less used than Windows), but a problem nonetheless:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/malware-apple.html
Also the users are snooty because it's the main marketing claim. Many buy it just for that. Some do so more for professional reasons though (graphic design, since you have a nice set of fonts by default. Plus everything is carefully designed, the proportions, everything. It's a better design environment).
But for most people, it's like having the latest cool shoes in high school. A status mark. We always want what the neighbor has, it's human nature I suppose.
It's not so surprising how many unix porn (I mean desktop design) is made to mimic a mac desktop.
Nowadays I see it like a golden cage. Low status as f*ck.
It`s indeed a golden cage. I couldn`t say otherwise.
Golden cages can be broken, it`s hard, but possible, once users realize
Apple doesn`t care for them.
Apple's things are like normal things, except that they have a perceived
value (NOT price) of "being from Apple".
So the users have a necessity/need, that is to buy a computer and other
hardware which comes with software for them to aid them in their
computing.
They also have a desire, that is to "acquire products from Apple,
because they're thought for me, and because Apple respects me".
Apples products satisfy this users, but not plainly/entirely.
Satisfying this users plainly/entirely involves convincing them that
their perceived desire is somewhat steered towards an organization that
doesn't respect them (and their essential freedoms as software users),
and guiding them to the process of using free software (the time taken
depends on the user's learning curve, on his will and on the time
available. People rarely take two months from using free software on
Windows to using a free operating system, they generally take years. Let
alone the process of freeing the other things like their computer's
BIOS, the smartphone, router, and so on). However, most of these users
won't be delighted.
Delighting these users involves showing them the importance of buying
hardware that respects their freedom to use ONLY free software, and
observing if these users really understand what software freedom is
about. And so making them believe that their hardware purchases play an
important role both for them and for the vendors (and manufacturers) of
hardware that respects their freedom because these vendors and
manufacturers are putting a lot of value (NOT price) on what they do,
and they won't survive long unless there's people to see and support
what they do.
Otherwise, those users who are not delighted will easily steer towards
buying any hardware that gives them THE CHANCE of using SOME PORTION of
free software. This paragraph can be exemplified simply like so: "That
computer that has a free BIOS is expensive and low quality, besides its
delivery is full of taxes in the country where I live. I'll simply buy a
computer (which is known to work with a free operating system) from the
store nearby, and think about the BIOS later on."
Respectfully, Adonay.
Have a nice day.
--
Assinatura automática – português brasileiro:
– Página de usuário na wiki do LibrePlanet.org:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
– Em favor da aprovação da Lei ODF em Santa Catarina
(https://secure.avaaz.org/po/petition/Aprovacao_da_Lei_ODF_em_Santa_Catarina),
e para garantir os direitos humanos de igual tratamento pelo governo ou
lei, de circulação dentro das fronteiras de cada nação, de participação
no governo, e de igualdade no acesso aos serviços públicos, não estou
aceitando arquivos do Microsoft Office ou do Apple iWork. Por favor,
use o LibreOffice(https://www.libreoffice.org/) e seus formatos do
padrão ODF (.odt, .odp, etc.).
Automatic signature – North American English:
– User page on LibrePlanet.org wiki:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
– In favor of the approval of the ODF law in Santa Catarina
(https://secure.avaaz.org/po/petition/Aprovacao_da_Lei_ODF_em_Santa_Catarina),
and to ensure the human rights of equal treatment by the government or
law, of circulation inside the boundaries of each nation, of
participation on the government, and of equality on the access to the
public services, I'm not accepting Microsoft Office's files or Apple
iWork's files. Please use LibreOffice (https://www.libreoffice.org/)
and its formats from the ODF standard (.odt, .odp, etc).
Agreed.
I'll add that in order to make people break free from it,
I think one of the most important aspects for gaining wider use is top-notch useability (or idiot-proofability).
People do not want to have to fix their computer, ever.
Everything is just plug and play and works.
Apple controls the full production chain,
so it's easier to have something that rarely breaks (and is taken care of).
It's a serious advantage (which goes with the image of very high quality/snottiness), but it's still a golden cage, no doubt about it. The few advantages in useability will never be worth the price to pay (not money, but privacy/freedom etc.). But most people around me won't be willing to spend half the time and energy I'm still spending to control my computing as much as possible.
One thing that would be interesting would be to compare help forums of free software and proprietary software and calculate a percentage of issues encountered related to the number of people in the user base.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the percentages of issues is lower here.
All my attempts to use proprietary software so far resulted in issues, unlike free/libre software.
People claim all the time proprietary software is more convenient, but I highly doubt it from a reliability point of view. In my experience, it breaks more often than free/libre software.
If you are attempting to use software that will hand control over your computer to its developer then you have a bigger problem thereof than whether it “breaks”.
It's not that GNU/Linux isn't rock solid, it's that it's less automated, less dumbed down, more in the way between the user and the work. Flexibility is a double-edged sword.
The multiplicity of hardware support (sometimes without free drivers) is not a problem that proprietary OSs have to deal with.
Also, I'm being a bit unfair since I don't know the ratio of minor issues vs the user base of each kind of OS.
But I'll state it once again without ambiguity:
While I think exceptional useability/convenience will help a wider adoption, I will keep on giving up a few convenience-related features for software that respects the user (i.e. free software).
well said.
@Calinou
To me, it depends on what kind of user we're talking about.
GNU/Linux is reliable, but not so much (in comparison) if you don't know what you're doing.
The downside of its flexibility is that it's a bit easier to break. Other than that, it's know to be as solid/reliable as it gets.
My (subjective) perception is that I sometimes read that "some" people have their GNU/Linux suddenly not booting anymore (sure, we don't know what they did as root).
I've personally have broken the desktop bar in my first use of Trisquel. Unfortunately, I can't remember how I did that, but it shouldn't be possible ideally.
It's typical to be able to add bars and remove them, but for new and/or not computing-saavy users,
I'd stick with a rock solid bar that can't be suppressed easily, but can be moved around, hidden, things like that.
Widows for example had its share of unreliability/limitations etc.
But following on the desktop bar example, it's extremely unlikely to break it or remove it.
Very limited flexibility, but a more idiot-proof GUI.
It doesn't need another layer of sudo, just not making those personalization features as accessible.
Of course it's probably difficult to manage so many different pieces of software that way. But to me it's still a good idea.
Again, it's my subjective point of view/short experience,
and I'd rather go through a steeper learning curve than go back in my golden cage anyway. I can't unsee it anymore.
> I've personally have broken the desktop bar in my first use of Trisquel.
Trisquel 6? That's a bug in that version of GNOME Fallback, not a mistake you made. GNOME Flashback doesn't even offer an option to have no panels; the last remaining one can't be deleted.
The problem resolves itself if you log out and log back in. It doesn't happen in the version of GNOME Flashback on Trisquel 7.
> Very limited flexibility, but a more idiot-proof GUI.
Have you ever tried GNOME Shell before? I get the impression that you haven't. Most of the initial flak the GNOME team got when GNOME 3 was released was because it's designed with "limited flexibility, but a more idiot-proof GUI", in a sense (you can pretty much change everything, but this is done with extensions you write in JavaScript, not configuration settings; without extensions, there's not much you can change).
It's great. Only reason I don't use it right now in Trisquel is because of a weird bug I've encountered which makes it unusable on my laptop ever since I plugged it into an HD TV.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios