Slashdot Mirror

a) Nearly 100% of the userspace that makes your "Linux" system run is part of the GNU project

Not necessarily. Sure, you're running GNU/Linux if you use Debian, Fedora, or any other system built on GNU Coreutils, Bash, glibc, GCC, GTK+, and the like. But a lot of my Xubuntu laptop's RAM is occupied by things like X.Org X11, Xfce panel, Thunar, Mousepad, Firefox, GIMP, and other things that aren't "GNU software" because FSF doesn't own the copyright. GNU exceeds Linux in distributions like these but is by no means the majority. There also exist Linux systems that use little or no GNU software, such as Alpine Linux, Android, OpenWrt, and Starch Linux.

a) Nearly 100% of the userspace that makes your "Linux" system run is part of the GNU project

Not necessarily. Sure, you're running GNU/Linux if you use Debian, Fedora, or any other system built on GNU Coreutils, Bash, glibc, GCC, GTK+, and the like. But a lot of my Xubuntu laptop's RAM is occupied by things like X.Org X11, Xfce panel, Thunar, Mousepad, Firefox, GIMP, and other things that aren't "GNU software" because FSF doesn't own the copyright. GNU exceeds Linux in distributions like these but is by no means the majority. There also exist Linux systems that use little or no GNU software, such as Alpine Linux, Android, OpenWrt, and Starch Linux.

The bigger mystery is why he felt the need to enforce arbitrary rules on the string at all. Pass it to getpwnam_r(), job done. Validating username format should not be duplicated or the responsibility of a badly written jumped up process manager. That guy is a fascistic idiot

It's much more likely that your favored political figure is, in fact, a moron who is incapable of securing his own communications.

Do you think it is the CEO's job to secure his own telephone? Should that same CEO have to abandon his contact list from a perfectly standard iPhone with something like a 19% market share. You're calling the entire US government idiots. In particular every single person drawing any kind of pay from the government in any capacity involving technology. (Also the whole software industry especially telecommunictions, Apple etc. Though perhaps just stupidly greedy not idiotic. )

But you know. Enjoy it. You seem to enjoy denigrating others. Point that finger all you want and try to ignore the other 3 pointing back. We've got an infrastructure that can't transfer a list of names and 10-digit numbers. It is pretty freaking ridiculous.

Hey I think someone actually predicted this mess: The Right to Read.

Already your accusing someone who made a rather benign statement of "violating the code."

Benign statement? What part of using legal licensing mechanisms to get people to be nice to each other?
is (1)consistent with something RMS actually said and (2) not implying ridicule against RMS?...
See also: *sigh*....
 
Stallman's problem is that he's trying to jam licensing into things that don't quite fit.

The GP is claiming both that Stallman has a "problem", and this simple set of guidelines is an example of the problem.

I would point out that RMS published a guideline, and neither in his e-mail message nor in the guideline itself is there a reference
whatsoever to any kind of licensing mechanism other than copyrights asserted for the webpage itself.

Already your accusing someone who made a rather benign statement of "violating the code."

Benign statement? What part of using legal licensing mechanisms to get people to be nice to each other?
is (1)consistent with something RMS actually said and (2) not implying ridicule against RMS?...
See also: *sigh*....
 
Stallman's problem is that he's trying to jam licensing into things that don't quite fit.

The GP is claiming both that Stallman has a "problem", and this simple set of guidelines is an example of the problem.

I would point out that RMS published a guideline, and neither in his e-mail message nor in the guideline itself is there a reference
whatsoever to any kind of licensing mechanism other than copyrights asserted for the webpage itself.

The DNS resolver is NOT part of the IP stack. It's an application level protocol that is usually done over UDP(sometimes TCP as well). The IP stack itself doesn't care about a DNS name, all it wants to get is an IP address provided from userspace.

Mind you most operating systems do come with a built in resolver of some sort, but often these have serious limitations.

For example, on most Unix type systems, the gethostbyname interface does not lend itself well to event loop style programming because it blocks. The typical solution has been to use an alternate DNS library like c-ares or adns. You can even use those libraries on Windows if you like and bypass it's DNS resolver as well.

There are many pieces of software out there that explicitly ignore anything to do with /etc/hosts and only fetch the nameservers from resolv.conf or similar. That's the problem with hosts files any piece of software is perfectly free to ignore it entirely!

I figured you of all people would know this.

Actually, the GPL copyright issue might be moot. See this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...

The copyright notice (incl. the "...but changing is not allowed") is legally binding, some text in a FAQ somewhere is not.

The point is to force an end-run around copyright, with the eventual goal of utterly destroying copyright.

Absolutely wrong! Without copyright all the restrictive, copyleft licensing goes away and what we have is permissive, BSD-like licenses. Restrictive licenses like the GPL are not enforceable without copyright, if it goes away then so does restrictive "free" software licensing. Good riddance.

Copyleft is a way of using the copyright on the program. It doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to leave”—only to the direction which is the mirror image of “right”.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

It looks like the GPL copyright issue might be moot: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...

Actually, the GPL copyright issue might be moot. See this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...

This issue has to do with patent law, not copyright law. So it's important to look at how Microsoft uses patent law to appear to be conciliatory while retaining considerable power. Microsoft has already demonstrated a preference for what Richard Stallman rightly calls "pushover" free software licenses—non-copyleft licenses such as the new BSD and MIT X11 license. Microsoft picks such licenses not for some inchoate disagreement with the GNU GPL as you stated but because those licenses don't stop Microsoft from doing more of what they did with their patent licence for .NET core. That license is so limited one can't do valuable things such as sharing code across projects and modifying code in ways we find useful to us without risking losing a patent infringement lawsuit from Microsoft.

In Microsoft's patent license for .NET core, "you're only protected if you're distributing the code "as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime"". So if you add any of the code to another project, then you lose protection and MS reserves the right to use their patents against you.". The GNU GPL, by contrast, would have protected you from this, allowing you to use the covered code in another project and retain your software freedom.

As the article also points out, Microsoft's patent license only applies under very limited conditions, "the protection only applies to a "compliant implementation" of .NET. So if you want to remove some parts and make a streamlined framework for embedded devices, then your implementation won't be compliant and the protection doesn't apply to you."

We don't know for sure if one would gain an implicit patent license with code distributed under the MIT X11 license but we do know one would get license to do as they need or want under the GNU GPLv3 because the text of the license says so:

Code distributed under the GNU GPLv3, comes with a patent grant which basically says the contributors can't use their patents against the users for exercising the freedoms granted in the licence:

([quoting the GNU GPLv3] section 11)

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

The language of GPLv2 section 7 applies here as well.

So if you're looking to use your software freedom, pick a license that does the job of ensuring those rights will be there when you need them by spelling out those rights explicitly; right now that's the GNU GPLv2 or later. I suspect that it is this consideration for users, plus Brad Kuhn's keen knowledge of the GNU GPLs, and practical value in licensing compatibly with the Linux kernel that lead him to recommend licensing under GNU GPLv2 or later.

So... you would rather they released code under a licence that lets licensees deny the same freedoms bestowed upon them when they release a work that uses it?

In many cases, yes. The GPL is often appropriate for full applications. BSD is often better for components, libraries, and interfaces, when you want wide adoption, even by proprietary vendors. TCP/IP (i.e. "The Internet") is a good example of this being successful.

Even the FSF has conceded that the standard GPL is often inappropriate for libraries and components, so they have the "Lesser" LGPL for that purpose.

No mention of what System76 considers an Open Source computer.

Precisely; and that's a big part of the problem with marketing terms—they are designed to tell you nothing substantive. This seems particularly useless when pitching a computer for sale (pre-orders are said to be on offer in October) and speaking to what is likely a technically literate audience that values being in control of their own computers. I know what features I'd want in a modern, powerful computer but I can't begin to evaluate if this computer is worth considering.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) put together criteria by which hardware ought to be evaluated however this organization predates the development methodology brought up by the term "open source" by over a decade. The FSF has a history of doing work with published, carefully structured definitions (such as their list of "Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing") based on critical thinking about relevant technological and social issues. For example, the FSF doesn't want to be lumped in with "open source" because they stand for different values.

I'd like to see this new system be evaluated for the Respects Your Freedom campaign; I'd find that useful information to help me determine whether I should order one of these computers. But right now all I see are vague terms and an ad campaign that doesn't illuminate what's really going on offer.

No mention of what System76 considers an Open Source computer.

Precisely; and that's a big part of the problem with marketing terms—they are designed to tell you nothing substantive. This seems particularly useless when pitching a computer for sale (pre-orders are said to be on offer in October) and speaking to what is likely a technically literate audience that values being in control of their own computers. I know what features I'd want in a modern, powerful computer but I can't begin to evaluate if this computer is worth considering.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) put together criteria by which hardware ought to be evaluated however this organization predates the development methodology brought up by the term "open source" by over a decade. The FSF has a history of doing work with published, carefully structured definitions (such as their list of "Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing") based on critical thinking about relevant technological and social issues. For example, the FSF doesn't want to be lumped in with "open source" because they stand for different values.

I'd like to see this new system be evaluated for the Respects Your Freedom campaign; I'd find that useful information to help me determine whether I should order one of these computers. But right now all I see are vague terms and an ad campaign that doesn't illuminate what's really going on offer.

This source code release uses the MIT license (aka Expat license) which is compatible with the GNU GPL.

Note that it is only one-way compatible, not two-way compatible like the MIT license and the two clause BSD license.

It reduces the chances of tainting freedos since freedos already reverse engineered dos 1.x/2.x era functionality decades ago.

Yes, you're right. The previous source code release of MS-DOS (March 2014, from Microsoft) was under a "look but do not touch" license that said you could only read the source code, but you could not use it elsewhere, and you couldn't apply what you'd learned from the MS-DOS code in other projects. So the FreeDOS Project has been very careful and said several times that if you viewed the MS-DOS source code, you should not contribute to FreeDOS Base because we didn't want to risk tainting the FreeDOS source code. We have a note to that effect on the FreeDOS History page:

"Please note: if you download and study the MS-DOS source code, you should not contribute code to FreeDOS afterwards. We want to avoid any suggestion that FreeDOS has been "tainted" by this proprietary code."

This source code release uses the MIT license (aka Expat license) which is compatible with the GNU GPL. That should mean that people who read this version of the MS-DOS source code can contribute to FreeDOS. (As always, if you've somehow viewed one of the unauthorized source code releases of MS-DOS, you should still not contribute to FreeDOS Base.)

Note: I'm the founder and coordinator of FreeDOS

It’s only the source for the two ancient versions mentioned - 1.25 and 2.0. It’s been a while (obviously), but I don’t think MS-DOS got interesting until 3.x... and the final release was 8.0.

Don’t think this will replace your FreeDOS, in other words.

This is a very interesting update. And interestingly, the MIT license is compatible with the GNU GPL.

You're right, these are very old versions of MS-DOS that do not include more advanced features including CD-ROM support, networking, '386 support, etc. So from a practical side, FreeDOS would not be able to reuse this code for any modern features anyway. But for basic features, such as weird edge case compatibility, we might now be able to reference this code to improve FreeDOS.

Note: I'm the founder and coordinator of FreeDOS

> If you want to terminate your license, you first have to find cause to do so,

I'd suggest you actually read the GPLv2 and other GPL licenses. GPLv2 is at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g....

There is nothing in it saying it cannot be withdrawn for any reason the original author sees fit. In practical terms, it would be extraordinarily difficult to force someone using a licensed copy to _remove_ their extant copy from previously distributed or currently running copies of software distributed under the license. But it seems quite reasonable that an author could withdraw the license for future software including licensed GPL components, or including a GPL licensed package.

if it isn't in your back yard, it is probably all about money.

It's practical for a league to make money by playing a free* ball sport. How is it impractical for a league to make money by playing a free esport?

* In the sense that players and equipment manufacturers enjoy the four freedoms listed by FSF with respect to the sport's rules.

WLinux is based on Debian, and the developer, Whitewater Foundry

It's developed by Whitewater Foundry, not Microsoft. And yes, you can sell GPL software if you also distribute the source.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

BTW, I searched for "Linux" on the MS Store, and found five explicitly listed Linux distros (Ubundu, openSuze, Suze Linux Enterprise, Debian, and Kali)... but not WLinux. I had to specifically search for it by name before I found it on the store. I'm not sure why they think anyone would pay $10 for a Linux distro when there are plenty of free and well-known alternatives.

Oh yes there will. ;^)

Damn right there will.

"GNU is NOT UNIX" is a very very political statement.

The GNU website describes it this way: "GNU's Not Unix [is] a way of paying tribute to the technical ideas of Unix, while at the same time saying that GNU is something different. Technically, GNU is like Unix. But unlike Unix, GNU gives its users freedom."

It is only political in the sense that it is a declaration of independence from the corporate politics associated with copyrights. Traditionally, a nerd's involvement in politics has been limited to asserting that he should be free to do his technical work without interference, and that's what "GNU's Not Unix" is asserting.

But now the SJWs are attempting to force the nerds to think about additional political issues, such as inclusivity. And in response, the nerds are vocally asserting their independence from those political concerns. When somebody says that "nerds don't care about politics", they mean that nerds don't care about any politics unless it interferes with their technical work.

Apple is certainly to be avoided. What Apple does to its users is also an instance of a much larger problem—proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating) software—and we should all avoid nonfree software virtually all of the time. The only exception is for those who are reverse engineering the software to write a free replacement, but this requires controlled circumstances and is highly unlikely to come into play for most computer users. For most computer users proprietors and service providers are likely best avoided: Netflix treats users no better (movie DRM is rampant, Netflix's website conveys nonfree software to its users), nor do many popular game publishers, or any of a number of other software proprietors. This has been true for decades.

However services aren't free or nonfree, they raise different issues, and one needs to be clear to separate the benefits and harms services provide from the software used with the service. It's possible the harms of the service depend on nonfree software. I wouldn't give Apple money for a chance to possibly watch a movie even if iTunes were free software or if I could use a different free software program to interact with the iTunes service. I don't like the tracking that comes with streaming media, I don't like the nonfree software typically used to access streaming media, and I don't want the other software involved in typical use of the temporarily-accessed media (such as remotely erasing copies of books and promising never to do this again unless ordered to by the state, both of which Amazon did). I much prefer structural analysis which lets me know what other parties are capable of doing (whether they use their power or not) and looking into how they treat their customers and business partners. Hence I'm more likely to read books (not DRM-riddled eBooks) in privacy whenever and wherever I choose.

Apple is certainly to be avoided. What Apple does to its users is also an instance of a much larger problem—proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating) software—and we should all avoid nonfree software virtually all of the time. The only exception is for those who are reverse engineering the software to write a free replacement, but this requires controlled circumstances and is highly unlikely to come into play for most computer users. For most computer users proprietors and service providers are likely best avoided: Netflix treats users no better (movie DRM is rampant, Netflix's website conveys nonfree software to its users), nor do many popular game publishers, or any of a number of other software proprietors. This has been true for decades.

However services aren't free or nonfree, they raise different issues, and one needs to be clear to separate the benefits and harms services provide from the software used with the service. It's possible the harms of the service depend on nonfree software. I wouldn't give Apple money for a chance to possibly watch a movie even if iTunes were free software or if I could use a different free software program to interact with the iTunes service. I don't like the tracking that comes with streaming media, I don't like the nonfree software typically used to access streaming media, and I don't want the other software involved in typical use of the temporarily-accessed media (such as remotely erasing copies of books and promising never to do this again unless ordered to by the state, both of which Amazon did). I much prefer structural analysis which lets me know what other parties are capable of doing (whether they use their power or not) and looking into how they treat their customers and business partners. Hence I'm more likely to read books (not DRM-riddled eBooks) in privacy whenever and wherever I choose.

There is no reason to trust either a tracker (a more honest name for a mobile phone or cell phone along the lines of the time-honored wisdom of calling things by their proper names—we should recognize what those devices do most). There is no reason to trust the Echo or Home spy speakers either. The same reason applies—users don't control their computers when those computers running proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating) software. There's nothing to be gained in a distraction over which computer is more trustworthy. The goal should be to respect all computer users' software freedom for all of their computers. No matter what network analysis reveals about any of the spy speakers today (and no matter how thorough the analysis is) because that result could be rendered obsolete as quickly as Amazon can get Echo devices to install a software update (the Amazon Echo appears to have a universal backdoor as it installs updates automatically). The FSF looked into this and remarked "We have found nothing explicitly documenting the lack of any way to disable remote changes to the software, so we are not completely sure there isn't one, but it seems pretty clear."

As for evidence of turning the Amazon Echo into a listening device, it appears this was done by a party other than Amazon. Again on this the FSF remarks, "It was very difficult for them to do this. The job would be much easier for Amazon. And if some government such as China or the US told Amazon to do this, or cease to sell the product in that country, do you think Amazon would have the moral fiber to say no?". Amazon is the same organization that remotely erased people's legally-acquired books about which the FSF remarked

One of the books erased was 1984, by George Orwell. Amazon responded to criticism by saying it would delete books only following orders from the state. However, that policy didn't last. In 2012 it wiped a user's Kindle-Swindle and deleted her account, then offered her kafkaesque "explanations."

The wisdom of software freedom—a user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software—remains apt and clear: proprietary software is untrustworthy by default.

There are a few with nature references:

You step in the stream,
but the water has moved on.
This page is not here.

A crash reduces
your expensive computer
to a simple stone.

Others here: https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/error-haiku

No need for a new license, just better educated developers: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

> Yes I have a 4 year degree, and it had lots of math.

Good for you. And yet you don't understand the value of an array programming language?

> And as opposed to your snide, and rude remarks

Oh, that stings?

> > If you can't write it in C, you shouldn't be writing code, anywhere! Be a plumber! Be an electrician, be an HVAC person, be any of the high paying jobs that this country is crying out for!

Does the above sound intelligent to you? I just replied in kind.

> leave writing code, to those of us who started with assembler, learned C after that and can write any kind of code you want or need, and yes that includes everything.

Your assembler and C experience won't help you learn Haskell faster. This is like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory arguing that he has a better opinion on Biology or Medicine since he knows Physics, since that is eventually underneath it all. Doesn't work that way.

In CS research departments, they have a few low-level coders around. These are implementers, not researchers.

> Or just run this simple google search: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

We can all do Google searches. How many mathematicians do you know today who do modern math in C?
All your results are for rudimentary C 101 tutorials for programming newbies explaining what a for loop is. These are basic arithmetic level tutorials.
That is not where math research is today.

> http://www.gnu.org/software/gs...

GSL gives you some very useful algorithms, but it won't help you write clean math code. You want to write code as close to the symbolic stuff, not clutter it with imperative loops, memory allocations, deallocations and casts.

Compare some Julia code vs. gsl_vector code side by side.

Statisticians choose R over C for very good reasons. Web devs use PHP/Ruby over C for very good reasons. CS researchers and Engineers choose Matlab over C for very good reasons. Kernel/Programming language/Core library designers choose C/C++ for very good reasons. There is no silver bullet.

Just about everything is an improvement over C in terms of productivity and safety. All too often, people mistake sunk cost bias for rational choice. Low-level programming choice is often mistaken for intelligence.

You might want to look through this http://www.gnu.org/software/gs...

Philistine.

Best language: machine code.
Best editor: ed.

...back in the 80's when he started the free software foundation.


I think the best answer he came up with went something like this...


When Star-Trek-like devices come into existence that can manifest objects from basic atomic raw materials and the ability to produce atomic raw inputs is trivial; then, what of economy? More simply put, why keep buying apples from the orchard, when one apple is enough to start your own (assuming your need for apples was important enough to expend the energy to maintain an apple tree or an orchard).


Moving pictures, Pictures, Art, Sound, Music, Literature, Software. None of these things can sustain life; yet, they with out them, would life really be lived? One would hope even the birds and the whales understand beauty, song.


What would life be like if all these things were not PART of ANY, economy? What if we concerned ourselves economically with that which is required for all these things to be freely available? What if the movies I created did not earn me any money; but, my reward was enriching the lives of those who enjoyed them, or at the least, enjoyed a degree of inflated ego knowing how many others liked my movies, pictures, art, music, sound, literature, etc...


I don't understand how such an economy would be possible; but, I don't think it's really that far from a possibility. In fact. If such an economy were the standard, I think our standard of living would drastically increase. And, in addition, the means to produce such works, and the time to attend to them would probably increase as well.


"Production" is the problem.


Right now, with very little monetary over-head, anyone can produce: Moving Pictures, Pictures, Sound, Music, Art, Literature


To varying degrees they all do require certain production costs in that they often require the works of multiple people to be incorporated into a single whole. However; the cost of reproduction, at this point, is almost zero.


When farmers got ahold of mechanical farming tools, it put a lot of would-be farmhands out of work. What we are seeing now, to a large degree, is an ever increasing attempt at using legislation to prevent progress. It would be like if the people who were inventing tractors were dealing with legislation that was being passed to prevent their tractors from being used; but, they didn't. The people in power (the farm owners) just found a way better way to do farming.


Any scarcity of Moving Pictures, Pictures, Sound, Music, Literature, and software is an artificial scarcity created with law. Therefore, the best investment for any Producers of these kinds of works is to invest in the means to enforce law. There is probably a mathmatical function that could be derived that could give you the amount of money one should invest in law enforcement combined with the needed investiture to create the work; but...


Losing your job to the tractor is probably not fun; but, to gain freedom from having to do such mundane work, hopefully, is the fertile breeding ground for the type of creativity and hopefully freedom in general and in creativity, our global civilization may be lacking in.


Our current economic model does not bare out well for sustaining free cultural works. Certain types of cultural works require very specific skill-sets and even minds themselves that just aren't accessible to the average working Josephine. If I want to create a free culture major motion picture, the very first thing I would need is a very large injection of Capital. I could try to raise the capital ahead of time like a go-fund me; but, this model does not always play out. If all the money I wanted from making the movie comes to me before I make the movie; why not just bow out when the money arrives. The movie was just a means for me to get my money. Or perhaps, I do actually want to make the movie to make the movie as a free cultural w

Also be aware of the attempts to turn computers into locked-down content rental/consumption devices. Support open hardware and software platforms where available, if you want to continue to own your own computing devices and software. The idea of ownership doesn't have to give way to rental, but too many people are ignorant and willingly chaining themselves within the walled gardens of large corporations. These entities desire to rent all works in perpetuity, and will continue to strip your rights until none remain. If you haven't already, please spend a few minutes to absorb The Right to Read.

We have choices. Support creators that use a donation model, or at least sell their works in DRM-free formats. Paying for works that strip or violate your rights should be avoided if possible. Violating copyright is the moral option in these cases, or avoiding such works entirely. Publisher's including Disney have effectively stolen the public domain, and people should resist, or it will only get much worse. Copyright should be reformed or preferably abolished, as "intellectual property" is a highly regressive concept. See Everything Is a Remix and Against Intellectual Monopoly.

Throw off the yoke of Micro$oft and be freeeee!

You'll be free, hackers!

What's to stop snooping add-ons going forward?

Software freedom; the freedom to run, inspect, modify, and share published computer software plus user's vigilance and not installing stuff one really doesn't need.

Is there a mechanism in place to ensure no malware makes it into Firefox add-ons that are published on the Mozilla site?

We know of no perfect defense against malware. As this essay points out, "We who present free software as a defense against malware do not say it is a perfect defense. No perfect defense is known. We don't say the community will deter malware without fail.". The best defense we have is to run only free software and to support software freedom for its own sake, as a good unto itself. This is a big part of the reason why Firefox (which can be made free) is so important a browser and why other popular browsers (regardless of their developmental claims) aren't trustworthy. Other popular browsers are nonfree, user-subjugating, proprietary software and there's a lot of proprietary malware.

What's to stop snooping add-ons going forward?

Software freedom; the freedom to run, inspect, modify, and share published computer software plus user's vigilance and not installing stuff one really doesn't need.

Is there a mechanism in place to ensure no malware makes it into Firefox add-ons that are published on the Mozilla site?

We know of no perfect defense against malware. As this essay points out, "We who present free software as a defense against malware do not say it is a perfect defense. No perfect defense is known. We don't say the community will deter malware without fail.". The best defense we have is to run only free software and to support software freedom for its own sake, as a good unto itself. This is a big part of the reason why Firefox (which can be made free) is so important a browser and why other popular browsers (regardless of their developmental claims) aren't trustworthy. Other popular browsers are nonfree, user-subjugating, proprietary software and there's a lot of proprietary malware.

What you need is software freedom: the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software. Developmental methodology won't get you the provable security of free software and it won't necessarily get you the freedom to make your computer do what you want it to do by following your instructions.

It would be possible to come up with a browser that worked as you described but was proprietary. Such a browser would be as untrustworthy as other proprietary malware proves to be (not just Google's proprietary software either; there's plenty of proprietary malware to choose from, this is a structural problem with all proprietary software). With proprietary software it hardly matters if malware comes about through an engineering accident or on purpose because either way even the capable and willing users are forbidden from doing anything to help themselves to fix the problem, or to help their community by distributing a fixed version. A defensible developmental methodology is nice as far as it goes, but that doesn't go far enough to get societies what we need. What we need is software freedom.

What you need is software freedom: the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software. Developmental methodology won't get you the provable security of free software and it won't necessarily get you the freedom to make your computer do what you want it to do by following your instructions.

It would be possible to come up with a browser that worked as you described but was proprietary. Such a browser would be as untrustworthy as other proprietary malware proves to be (not just Google's proprietary software either; there's plenty of proprietary malware to choose from, this is a structural problem with all proprietary software). With proprietary software it hardly matters if malware comes about through an engineering accident or on purpose because either way even the capable and willing users are forbidden from doing anything to help themselves to fix the problem, or to help their community by distributing a fixed version. A defensible developmental methodology is nice as far as it goes, but that doesn't go far enough to get societies what we need. What we need is software freedom.

What you need is software freedom: the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software. Developmental methodology won't get you the provable security of free software and it won't necessarily get you the freedom to make your computer do what you want it to do by following your instructions.

It would be possible to come up with a browser that worked as you described but was proprietary. Such a browser would be as untrustworthy as other proprietary malware proves to be (not just Google's proprietary software either; there's plenty of proprietary malware to choose from, this is a structural problem with all proprietary software). With proprietary software it hardly matters if malware comes about through an engineering accident or on purpose because either way even the capable and willing users are forbidden from doing anything to help themselves to fix the problem, or to help their community by distributing a fixed version. A defensible developmental methodology is nice as far as it goes, but that doesn't go far enough to get societies what we need. What we need is software freedom.

Maybe they learned that enough people on corporate repeater sites like these will dance the DRM (digital restrictions management because I side with the user class) two-step: when something isn't yet implemented, push for its need absent any evidence that such need exists. Ignore that we need not think above business above all else, and ignore that even within that all-too-limited business-first framing businesses existed and worked at least as well without DRM. Later, if the DRM is implemented but not yet popular, talk about the DRM as if it were a well-established standard only fools speak up against (the "deplorables" of the tech world). People who seek to control the computers they own, perhaps, but people who have a long history of seeing how badly DRM recipients are treated. Thus DRM ends up being given the red carpet from mere idea to early implementation as if it were always in our interest (DRM is never in our interest) and we'd be wise to accept yet another loss of software freedom (as DRM implementations require proprietary, nonfree, user-subjugating software).

Can we stop trying to make everything about money and just let people enjoy the classics already instead of copyright holding every fucking thing of culture hostage?

Apparently not. There are plenty of ways a government could fix this, but there isn't enough interest among voters to make this a ballot-deciding issue.

I've seen a few proposals that wouldn't appear to facially violate the Berne Convention's prohibition of formalities:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

For expert users and IT pros accustomed to having fine-grained control over the update process, these changes might seem wrenching and even draconian...

How proprietors use their power over the user power varies and perhaps increasingly obtuse, but is completely explainable in terms corporate media mostly doesn't dare to explain even as it documents a proprietors' excesses: the power is firmly rooted in denying users software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, modify, and share published computer software. Proprietary software users get as much control as the proprietors let them have. Microsoft has shown its users a taste of their power before such as when Windows 10 ignored user's privacy settings (including sending identifiable information to Microsoft, even if a user turns off its Bing search and Cortana features, and activates the privacy-protection settings) or when Microsoft forcibly and immediately imposed "upgrades" to Windows 10.

DRM, jailing, tyrannical control, surveillance, interference with ordinary activities, and sabotage are all there. When and if Microsoft deems it time for Windows users to take their updates without warning or opportunity for delay (including enterprise users), Microsoft will do so. This isn't unique to Microsoft either, this is part of an ongoing pattern of which Microsoft is but one proprietor wielding this control. Proprietors get to make these decisions stick based on your willingness to submit to their authority; you determine the limit of their control over your system by how long you'll let proprietary software (such as most of Microsoft's software) be installed on your computer. You can choose to favor software freedom instead, even if it means giving up some conveniences and learning new things. In doing so you take a step in the direction of controlling your computer and getting back the power you deserve over your computer.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

Seriously. If you're one of the three people here who haven't read it, go and do.

I'm already not using windos anywhere and haven't for over a decade, except at work where it is (sadly) still the standard. If they seriously move this way, I will campaign hard at work to move the default desktop to something else.

I have high hopes that they did it too late. The monopoly is not as strong as it used to be, for many people windos is just the default, they could use something else if they cared. A few single-platform apps are the reason holding them back, and of course, sadly, games.

I thought the distinction between 'free of charge' and 'free of restriction' in the use of the term 'free software' in this context was obvious since the GPL does not stipulate that GPL-licensed software or derivative works must be free of charge. I guess that distinction was lost on you so to clarify: "...the GPL didn't allow that without making XCode free software...".

Mozilla Is Working On a Chrome-Like 'Site Isolation' Feature For Firefox

If Firefox's implementation will be free software (or something that can easily become free software), Firefox will continue to allow anyone to inspect, modify, and share the software even commercially. This leads those who do such work to personally trust the code because they know what's in that code and if they find something they don't like (no matter how that is defined) they can improve the code (or get someone they trust to do this for them) and then they can distribute the improved code to help the community (including non-programmers, the majority of computer users). This also helps explain why other browsers including the Tor Browser derive from free software browsers such as Firefox.

Chrome, on the other hand, is nonfree software (proprietary, user-subjugating software); software which does not respect a user's software freedom. Therefore we can't determine all of what Chrome does, and if we find out it does something we don't like we have no permission to improve Chrome and distribute an improved version. Proprietary software developers are in a position of power over their users, which is an injustice to the users. So long as Chrome remains unvettable by its users Chrome remains untrustworthy by default. As the Free Software Foundation rightly points out, proprietary software is often malware: "the initial injustice of proprietary software often leads to further injustices: malicious functionalities". Any further assessment of Chrome means looking at proxies for its trustworthiness instead of going to the natural and logical place to make this determination—a program's source code. Then we get to the reputation of its developer—Google—a known participant in international mass surveillance (per Edward Snowden's leaks). It makes no sense to talk about the security and privacy benefits that come from a feature such as site isolation while relying on an inherently untrustworthy program to look out for your interests. You'll note that popularity of a program or its developer doesn't enter into any serious discussion of how much trust to place in these programs, or whether to recommend their use by others.

Except that violates a fundamental reason behind the philosophy.

Freedom #0 of the Four Freedoms of the Free Software Definition:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

Item #6 of the Open Source Definition:

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Are there any GPL issues preventing them from charging for Android?

No:

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, study and change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

Why is it "getting harder" to host your own solutions?

Many applications are not even available for purchase of a copy to run on your server. Instead, they are available exclusively on service as a software substitute (SaaSS) terms, namely that the application runs on an application service provider's server. One example of these is the server for any major MMO game.

Google Chrome is said to have made it easy for an extension to do total snooping on the user's browsing, and many of them do so. Chrome includes a module that activates microphones and transmits audio to its servers, and Chrome contains a key logger that sends Google every URL typed in, one key at a time. Google Chrome does a good job securing access to a user's data without telling the user what's really going on or giving the user a chance to stop the behavior they likely don't agree with.

Google Chrome is proprietary software. Nobody but Google has permission to study what Chrome does, alter Chrome, or distribute a modified Chrome. This is also how Google can get away with malware, hardly surprising behavior for a known international spy. As the GNU Project rightly points out:

Power corrupts; the proprietary program's developer is tempted to design the program to mistreat its users. (Software whose functioning mistreats the user is called malware.) Of course, the developer usually does not do this out of malice, but rather to profit more at the users' expense. That does not make it any less nasty or more legitimate.

Yielding to that temptation has become ever more frequent; nowadays it is standard practice. Modern proprietary software is typically a way to be had.

The New York Times called Google Chrome "secure" but didn't explain how they arrived at that conclusion. Regardless of what they meant by that claim, it's hard to see how any of the above behavior or whatever else Google can get away with via proprietary malware could reasonably be called 'secure'. Any feature Chrome offers has to be considered in the context of being implemented in proprietary software which by its nature imposes a power over its users.

Firefox was never proprietary; users could always inspect Firefox, edit out the portions of Firefox they didn't want to run or redistribute, edit any other part they wished, and distribute the rest (even if under another name with another logo), and Firefox derivatives have done just that many times. There's good reason Tor Browser, for instance, derives from Firefox. Free software (software that respect's a user's rights and community by allowing users to run, inspect, share, and modify the program) provides verifiable security; one need not guess or blindly trust a proprietor to do right by them. Firefox's technical achievements or detriments are thus a matter of spending time developing Firefox. This is a practical example of how you're better off with less technically capable free software than more technically capable proprietary software; we can make Firefox better in a technical sense but we can't make proprietary software free.