your-freedom and your-privacy for Trisquel ?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/3sgikq/parabola_as_arch_linux_alternative/
I thought this was cool !
I'd love that for Trisquel.
Not in the defeault install, but in the repo, that would be nice.
I wonder how complicated that would be (maybe there are complications since both aren't based on the same system).
This is pointless for two reasons: For one, Trisquel doesn't have any proprietary software to block. Second, if the concerns are instead over people installing proprietary junk from third parties, there is no way to have an exhaustive list of all possible package names to conflict with (it essentially involves making a list of all proprietary software in the universe, which is not possible. It is a similar problem to what VRMS faces.) Rather than placing the onus on the distro maintainers, if someone is branching out and getting software from other places outside Trisquel the responsibility is on them to know what they are doing.
So ok, the first reason is related to the difference between Ubuntu and Arch, which I didn't know about (Thanks onpon4).
The second reason can't be perfect, but it would be an interesting idea as a self-imposed or suggested training aid (training wheels).
I mean, people who would need this would most likely be used to the most famous proprietary software that's often free (as in beer), but not libre by definition. That kind of list doesn't need to be this long. Even better if it suggested an alternative or two.
Although the amount of work might not be worth making such a program, I find the idea interesting.
It's also not particularly useful as something to apply to Ubuntu, because Ubuntu separates libre from proprietary software (although we may have some disagreements on the exact definition, just like with Debian). From my understanding, Arch doesn't do that, and this is why that package exists.
Oh, it makes perfect sense now, thanks.
Hi, as I learn from you guys as well as GNU, I realize that
*no one promise and/or protect your privacy/security entirely _for_ you.*
At most what they try hard was to provide an opportunity for you. One should exert his/her own efforts to protect his/herself.
Therefore, inferring from this thought, the fs movement that GNU and FSF led might had been led to mix up people's perception on their privacy and 'freedom'.
The term 'freedom' is too hug and broad. One can say I don't have a computer, I don't understand English, so I don't have freedom to use your 'free' software that your software are not free/libre !
LOL, cheers
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 07:43:17 +0100 (CET), name at domain wrote:
> Hi, as I learn from you guys as well as GNU, I realize that
>
> *no one promise and/or protect your privacy/security entirely _for_ you.*
>
> At most what they try hard was to provide an opportunity for you. One should
> exert his/her own efforts to protect his/herself.
>
> Therefore, inferring from this thought, the fs movement that GNU and FSF led
> might had been led to mix up people's perception on their privacy and
> 'freedom'.
This makes no sense. Could you please clarify what you mean?
What I have gathered so far is that since users have to work for their privacy
with free software, and no one can be expected to shield them from harm without
the cooperation of the user in making sensible, privacy-respecting choices, you
have 'inferred' that the FSF is confusing people. What?
The FSF and/or GNU have never even promised to shield their users from privacy
breaches 100% of the time, with no action on the user's part; because that's a
silly promise to make.
> The term 'freedom' is too hug and broad. One can say I don't have a
> computer, I don't understand English, so I don't have freedom to use your
> 'free' software that your software are not free/libre !
This is a silly complaint, and one that I could not imagine anyone ever making.
Just because someone doesn't have access to the software doesn't make it any
less free, because obviously access to computing equipment is a necessary
prerequisite to the issue of computing freedom even cropping up.
Privacy and security in general are not 100% reliable, relating to free software or not. And they are a matter of degree. The end-user is often the weakest link. And from the software point of view, vulnerabilities happen.
But What jxself is saying is this : provided you rely solely on the repo, you're 99% safe. Any external program should be installed at your own risk, even Javascript.
I don't get what you're saying with your last argument. Are you saying that freedom isn't limited to free software? Well that's a given, even philosophers struggle with this concept to this day I suppose. I don't see how it relates to what you say before that though.
sorry, should be "too huge".
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios