So I've got one person replying to me saying FSF is too "fundamentalist", and I've got you saying they're too lax and are letting too much slip through.
The general theme is that some people will look for even the smallest error just to avoid acknowledging good work.
Why do I say "probably" in my previous post? Because you and I don't know what the firmware in our microwaves do. It's probably fine. There haven't been any big microwave firmware scandals that I'm aware of. (And if I didn't say "probably", you'd say "How can you know?!")
Regarding FSF's statement, they said "no proprietary firmware options". Options. Whatever firmware could be removed has been removed.
Is the HDD firmware a problem? I don't know. I don't know personally, and I don't know what FSF's take on it is.
But even if you did find some flaw, the right thing to do is say "Well, FSF is definitely 95%, and well done to them for their effort, but I'd like some discussion on this other 5%".
> Is the harddrive running open-source firmware too?
A disingenuous double attack.
First: "Since I can't be perfect, why should I make any effort at all?"
Second: "FSF is has compromised! that makes them insincere"
The answer is that no, the hd firmware isn't open. Like the firmware of a microwave or common wristwatch, it's probably impossible to put new firmware on it, and it's probably not a problem.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, so FSF's line is: if the software (including firmware) can be updated, it must be free. The philosophy is that if it's complex or important, then the vendor will create a way to update the firmware. If the firmware can't be updated, then the code is probably sufficiently mundane as to be ignored, just as circuits are ignored.
> no understanding of the importances of "just works"
That's not their part of the job.
Various entities can label something as user-friendly. FSF is pretty much the only entity that can label stuff as free.
This is one laptop. Hopefully next year there'll be twenty, and then someone can take on the job of announcing which is the most user-friendly of the twenty free laptops.
A lot of people seeing this sort of case ask a question like: can Google really decide where lawsuits must be filed?
I don't know the law about this in England, but in Belgium it seems the answer is: if the judge finds it not to be abusive.
In a case like this, where the "injured" party is financially small and the amount of damages per injured party will also be small, I wouldn't be surprised if Google's clause was found inapplicable.
But as I said, I don't know the relevant law in England. Just saying that besides yes and no, the answer could also be "it depends".
Yes. But there's no obligation on Mozilla to give everyone paychecks. If someone doesn't want to write free software for a competition, then don't enter the competition.
Mozilla should impose conditions and fund something useful.
(The values Mozilla should be following are already described in the Mozilla Manifesto. It just has to be put into practice more thoroughly.)
I found something similar-sounding on addons.mozilla.org, called DoNotTrackMe, but it's proprietary software so there's no way I'd trust it with my privacy.
(I'm also looking for a free software alternative to Ghostery if anyone has suggestions.)
I can't find a licence statement. Some source files say it's under Mozilla Public Licence v2.0, which means those files are free software, but other files don't have any licence info at all. Maybe the author just forgot, but if there's no licence then they're not free by any sense of the word. I'll look for an email address to contact them.
> Broadcast radio can easily be divided into distinct non-interfering > sets by frequency, location, time, or any of a number of other ways.
That doesn't refute anything I said. But, since you bring it up, if you believe the government shouldn't regulate the airwaves, then exactly who will divide up the airwaves?
Your comment would make sense if we were discussing a small group that owned 5% and Chavez reduced it to 1% or 0%, but that's not the case. We're discussing a small group owning 95% of a public resource, and Chavez pushed it back to 70% or 50%. Or the anti-Chavez crew here might say he pushed it back to 30% but there's still *tonnes* of anti-Chavez/Maduro stuff on TV and in the newspapers, including the minorities.
> The free press necessarily includes minority groups whose opinions you disagree with.
In Venezuela, the airwaves were under the almost exclusive control of a small group. This was anti-democratic and the only body with the power to fix it was the government. The government took some of the airwaves away from that small group and the US media (and much of the European media) reported it as Chavez taking over TV.
> The problem here is the state monopoly itselfâ"nationalization of the airwaves.
There's only one set of airwaves so whoever regulates it will have a monopoly.
The government is the only body that has a duty to look after the interests of the population. There's no other body that could do this job.
That's how pretty much every country operates. Nothing to do with Chavez/Maduro.
> [you shouldn't block stuff] based on the content
Nonsense. The airwaves are a limited resource and they're supposed to serve the public. If they're serving just a small group (by only broadcasting their content) then that's a problem for democracy and has to be fixed.
My point was that media reports about Venezuela in the US media aren't reliable. The article suggests that the population of Venezuela is getting plasma TVs for almost nothing. And that's typical. So, yeh, I'm sceptical about anti-Maduro stuff I read on Slashdot.
My mistake, you're right about the lack of US ownership. (At least directly.)
But, the role of the TV stations and newspapers after the 2002 coup is clear, no? They almost universally tried to remove a man who had the support of the great majority of the people.
So these media companies weren't part of the free press, they were just a very powerful lobby group for a very small part of the country, and they were abusing a state-granted monopoly (the right to use a section of the public airwaves). Dismantling or nationalising those excessively powerful lobby groups was a good start toward fixing democracy, no?
That's just the sensational way of saying that the army was there. Bringing some soldiers when seizing a building doesn't seem so strange to me. They didn't fire, or surround the shop. It's just sensationalist reporting.
When a US cop does his job, is he described as "an officer with a Taser, Mace, and firearm"? Of course not. That sort of nonsense reporting is reserved for stories about Central and South America.
The article mentions a fridge being sold for more than five thousand US dollars, so it seems there was indeed a need to do something. Seizing the oil refineries worked very well for Venezuela, maybe this is worth trying for electronics too.
I'm not saying it *is* a good idea, I'm just pointing out that the quality of reporting is lousy and there's the usual bias against any Central and South American leaders who don't pander to the US.
And did Venezuela stop being able to import groceries after they seized El Exito? Was the country ruined?
Hunger and poverty have gone down significantly since 1999. Even the anti-Chavez people accept this.
Chavez also seized the oil companies, and stopped Venezuela's biggest resource being a cash cow for foreign companies.
I've never been there. It's probably the country I most want to visit, and one of the main reasons is because it's so hard for a foreigner to know what the country is really like. I just read the Venezuelan newspapers and talk to Venezuelans sometimes here in Europe (mostly rich Venezuelans who don't like Chavez).
Slashdot Mirror
So I've got one person replying to me saying FSF is too "fundamentalist", and I've got you saying they're too lax and are letting too much slip through.
The general theme is that some people will look for even the smallest error just to avoid acknowledging good work.
Why do I say "probably" in my previous post? Because you and I don't know what the firmware in our microwaves do. It's probably fine. There haven't been any big microwave firmware scandals that I'm aware of. (And if I didn't say "probably", you'd say "How can you know?!")
Regarding FSF's statement, they said "no proprietary firmware options". Options. Whatever firmware could be removed has been removed.
Is the HDD firmware a problem? I don't know. I don't know personally, and I don't know what FSF's take on it is.
But even if you did find some flaw, the right thing to do is say "Well, FSF is definitely 95%, and well done to them for their effort, but I'd like some discussion on this other 5%".
haha, someone modded my two comments down because they disagree.
I guess they want FSF to do everything and hand it to them on a plate, free, user-friendly, zero cost.
> Is the harddrive running open-source firmware too?
A disingenuous double attack.
First: "Since I can't be perfect, why should I make any effort at all?"
Second: "FSF is has compromised! that makes them insincere"
The answer is that no, the hd firmware isn't open. Like the firmware of a microwave or common wristwatch, it's probably impossible to put new firmware on it, and it's probably not a problem.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, so FSF's line is: if the software (including firmware) can be updated, it must be free. The philosophy is that if it's complex or important, then the vendor will create a way to update the firmware. If the firmware can't be updated, then the code is probably sufficiently mundane as to be ignored, just as circuits are ignored.
> no understanding of the importances of "just works"
That's not their part of the job.
Various entities can label something as user-friendly. FSF is pretty much the only entity that can label stuff as free.
This is one laptop. Hopefully next year there'll be twenty, and then someone can take on the job of announcing which is the most user-friendly of the twenty free laptops.
Need: freezer, plastic tubs, big pot.
I fill a five or a seven litre pot with loads of veg, spuds, a few steaks. Boil for half an hour, turn to pulp with a hand blender, and voilÃ:
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/vegetable-soup.html (scroll down for pics)
Or a few kilos of tomatoes, minced meat, carrots and red peppers, and that's spaghetti bolognaise (just add spaghetti).
Or spuds, carrots, leaks, onions, and two or three whole chickens.
Onions, garlic, and broccoli get added to pretty much everything.
All goes into tubs, into the freezer. Take out two tubs each night to thaw.
Point is, I spend a day cooking and I eat clean, non-processed food every day for a month.
A lot of people seeing this sort of case ask a question like: can Google really decide where lawsuits must be filed?
I don't know the law about this in England, but in Belgium it seems the answer is: if the judge finds it not to be abusive.
In a case like this, where the "injured" party is financially small and the amount of damages per injured party will also be small, I wouldn't be surprised if Google's clause was found inapplicable.
But as I said, I don't know the relevant law in England. Just saying that besides yes and no, the answer could also be "it depends".
Glad to see it's GPLv3+, and that they included statements in the javascript that gets sent to people's browsers.
> Some folks need a paycheck
Yes. But there's no obligation on Mozilla to give everyone paychecks. If someone doesn't want to write free software for a competition, then don't enter the competition.
Mozilla should impose conditions and fund something useful.
(The values Mozilla should be following are already described in the Mozilla Manifesto. It just has to be put into practice more thoroughly.)
> In which way a bad move?
No one can reuse this code.
They're encouraging people to install and use non-free software, which doesn't help the campaigns for free drivers, video codecs, file formats, etc.
Mozilla could have used the money to encourage people to write free software.
Awful move.
With the exception of the "amateur" category, the games don't have to be free software. So Mozilla is paying people to write proprietary games.
Bad move.
> until they can figure out how to fix it.
It says "indefinitely".
Thanks. I've made a page on the libreplanet.org wiki and added Disconnect:
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Privacy_addons_for_web_browsers
And I've emailed the gnuzilla folks asking them to add it to their list of free addons:
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/addons.html
> Ghostery's shady dealings.
Seems I'm out of the loop. Got a link?
I can't find DNTPlus.
I found something similar-sounding on addons.mozilla.org, called DoNotTrackMe, but it's proprietary software so there's no way I'd trust it with my privacy.
(I'm also looking for a free software alternative to Ghostery if anyone has suggestions.)
> Its called Lightbeam.
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lightbeam/ [mozilla.org]
> Yes, its free, for certain definitions of free.
I can't find a licence statement. Some source files say it's under Mozilla Public Licence v2.0, which means those files are free software, but other files don't have any licence info at all. Maybe the author just forgot, but if there's no licence then they're not free by any sense of the word. I'll look for an email address to contact them.
> They also support -- and highly recommend -- a plugin
> that lets you see ALL the "3rd parties" who are tracking you
Which plugin is that? And is it free software?
Thanks,
> Broadcast radio can easily be divided into distinct non-interfering
> sets by frequency, location, time, or any of a number of other ways.
That doesn't refute anything I said. But, since you bring it up, if you believe the government shouldn't regulate the airwaves, then exactly who will divide up the airwaves?
Your comment would make sense if we were discussing a small group that owned 5% and Chavez reduced it to 1% or 0%, but that's not the case. We're discussing a small group owning 95% of a public resource, and Chavez pushed it back to 70% or 50%. Or the anti-Chavez crew here might say he pushed it back to 30% but there's still *tonnes* of anti-Chavez/Maduro stuff on TV and in the newspapers, including the minorities.
> The free press necessarily includes minority groups whose opinions you disagree with.
In Venezuela, the airwaves were under the almost exclusive control of a small group. This was anti-democratic and the only body with the power to fix it was the government. The government took some of the airwaves away from that small group and the US media (and much of the European media) reported it as Chavez taking over TV.
> The problem here is the state monopoly itselfâ"nationalization of the airwaves.
There's only one set of airwaves so whoever regulates it will have a monopoly.
The government is the only body that has a duty to look after the interests of the population. There's no other body that could do this job.
That's how pretty much every country operates. Nothing to do with Chavez/Maduro.
> [you shouldn't block stuff] based on the content
Nonsense. The airwaves are a limited resource and they're supposed to serve the public. If they're serving just a small group (by only broadcasting their content) then that's a problem for democracy and has to be fixed.
This is true.
Wikileaks is necessary because our own governments won't tell us what they're doing.
> spouting pro-Maduro factually incorrect stuff
I think you're seeing what you want to see.
My point was that media reports about Venezuela in the US media aren't reliable. The article suggests that the population of Venezuela is getting plasma TVs for almost nothing. And that's typical. So, yeh, I'm sceptical about anti-Maduro stuff I read on Slashdot.
Thanks for the reply. (And to the others who replied below.)
My mistake, you're right about the lack of US ownership. (At least directly.)
But, the role of the TV stations and newspapers after the 2002 coup is clear, no? They almost universally tried to remove a man who had the support of the great majority of the people.
So these media companies weren't part of the free press, they were just a very powerful lobby group for a very small part of the country, and they were abusing a state-granted monopoly (the right to use a section of the public airwaves). Dismantling or nationalising those excessively powerful lobby groups was a good start toward fixing democracy, no?
> with assault weapons
That's just the sensational way of saying that the army was there. Bringing some soldiers when seizing a building doesn't seem so strange to me. They didn't fire, or surround the shop. It's just sensationalist reporting.
When a US cop does his job, is he described as "an officer with a Taser, Mace, and firearm"? Of course not. That sort of nonsense reporting is reserved for stories about Central and South America.
The article mentions a fridge being sold for more than five thousand US dollars, so it seems there was indeed a need to do something. Seizing the oil refineries worked very well for Venezuela, maybe this is worth trying for electronics too.
I'm not saying it *is* a good idea, I'm just pointing out that the quality of reporting is lousy and there's the usual bias against any Central and South American leaders who don't pander to the US.
And did Venezuela stop being able to import groceries after they seized El Exito? Was the country ruined?
Hunger and poverty have gone down significantly since 1999. Even the anti-Chavez people accept this.
Chavez also seized the oil companies, and stopped Venezuela's biggest resource being a cash cow for foreign companies.
I've never been there. It's probably the country I most want to visit, and one of the main reasons is because it's so hard for a foreigner to know what the country is really like. I just read the Venezuelan newspapers and talk to Venezuelans sometimes here in Europe (mostly rich Venezuelans who don't like Chavez).
> It's not safe to do legitimate business in Venezuela anymore.
He seized five shops in a country of 29 million people. Don't you think you're being a little alarmist proclaiming the end of imports?