[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
In other words, choosing BSD is going for more security indeed (no expert, but it sounds like overkill). The quote has absolutely nothing to do with security and everything to do with licensing. I see no reason why permissively licensed software would be inherently more secure than copylefted software. Following your reasoning (you want more security and privacy), you don't make much sense in your choices. Indeed. Security and privacy are byproducts the freedom to study how the program works. Without it, there can be spyware. There can be backdoors. It actually is well known, either through observations or even through leaks (thank you Edward Snowden), that Windows has such malware.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
Sorry, bad wording on my part. Sorry, bad understanding on mine. ;-)
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
That's a level of control that you don't have in OpenBSD if the developer makes his code private. A free software developer can't change his mind and make his code private after licencing it as free software. The author of any program can change her mind about its licensing. For better or worse. What you probably mean is that any third person can take permissively licensed code and turn it proprietary (after modification or not).
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
It is not hard: if you are the author of some work, you can distribute copies under the terms of whatever license you want. You can even choose different licenses for different people. And you can change your mind along time. Both copylefted licenses and permissive licenses are free software licenses. However permissive license allow anyone (not the sole authors) to redistribute the work (modified or not) under the terms of any license. Potentially a proprietary license. It is like a man-in-the-middle attack on the freedoms: someone who receives freedoms can strip them out before redistribution. On the contrary, the copyleft forces the redistribution of the work (or any derivatives of it) under the same terms.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
So, to sum up, you "piss off people on the internet" and demand a system that will allow you to do that anonymously. You "don't encrypt" and says that "tor don't (sic) sound like an enjoyable experience". You now leave GNU/Linux and goes back to Windows because privacy is not the "raison d'être" of free software (only a byproduct of freedom 1) and "backdoors in Windows are overrated". You have serious logical issues... Windows has backdoors. At least since Windows 98: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
People like jxself and others linking me rms videos and gnu documentation, and claiming using free software for privacy and security reasons is not as important as the "ethical" reasons. You do not get it. Free software is developed in the interest of the users because the users are in control (the whole objective of the four freedoms). If the users want programs that are secure and respectful of their privacy, they will get it. Anyone among those users is free to work on that or they can contract any third developer to work on that. In other words, privacy and security are features. Like having a nice GUI or the support for a new format. The free software movement is more fundamental than that. If, like you claim, "most people" want secure and privacy-respecting software then that is what free software becomes because free software is developed in the interest of the users. Not in the interest of large corporations.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
You keep coming off as someone who thinks people who program the software are more entitled to have control over it, then those that don't. I actually keep on writing the exact opposite: that the users (not the developers) of a computer program are entitled to have control over it because it is their work (not the developers') that is achieved through the use of the program. You are the ones focusing on specific features, when you seperate "ethics' from privacy and security. Ethics is not a feature. Developing an ethical software (i.e., a free software) rather than an unethical one (i.e., a proprietary software) is no different from a technical point of view.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
One should know how to define why something is ethical and why its not. No. Any reasoning is ultimately based on principles that are not explainable (in mathematics, they are called axioms; in ethics, they are principles). Just try to tell me why users deserve privacy and you will see that your ultimate explanation will be "because it is right".
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
Ty for changing your posts. I have not. You are not better then me cause you are a developer/programmer and I'm not. I'm glad you finally realize that. I have never pretended otherwise. And if its no different then why argue with me on what reasons are more important to use free software? I do not care about your reasons to use free software. I believe nobody does. We only correct the false statements you write: writing that "reasons to use free software all boil down to privacy and security" is wrong; writing that "any bug can be a possible malicious exploit" is wrong; etc.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
And how can you know he doesn't use proprietary drivers, are you on his machine? Are you?
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
How can anyone not want to use trisquel because it is not popular enough for them. There are advantages in belonging to a larger community. Better support for instance. But why do you even care about the validity of the reasons someone provides to justify her use of Debian or Trisquel? You are entitled find those reasons stupid. But it is no justification for acting like the Spanish inquisition, pointing out anyone that does not us free software for the same reasons you do and saying (s)he is a "wuss". The real reasons must be the same as every other free software advocate who uses debian over trisquel. For prop drivers. So, basically, you do not know but assumes that he is a liar. With no proof whatsoever. If anything, buying a dongle that Linux-libre runs suggests refusing proprietary drivers/firmware as much as possible. The fact he uses debian and not trisquel, makes him fake enough as it is, regardless if he uses prop drivers or not. Where did he lie about using Trisquel when he was actually using Debian? You are probably just making more things up...
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
I gave you my reasons, privacy and security. I asked you to tell me why users deserve privacy. Your answer basically is "for privacy". You do not have any deeper explanation. It is a principle. And I hope you now realize that any argument boils down to principles. That you were wrong to mock ethics. You then list applications of the principles. We did the same to show you that the users controlling the software has real impacts. For instance that they can correct any bug or implement any missing feature. These are not principles, they are real tangible things society can understand. They are principles. Applications of principles are tangible. Free software principles really empower the users. In practice. And society can understand those principles.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
But I would never make a self righteous comment that someone elses reasons for using free software are less important then mine to the movement. Nor would I spend time arguing why it shouldn't be someones main reasons for using it. That is precisely what you do.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
Users deserve privacy, because if not things they do on their computer can be used against them. Then, why shouldn't computer usages be used against people? At some point, you will have to end up with "because it is right" or "because it is wrong", i.e., a principle.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
Who voted? I doubt they are security experts...
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
then you disagree with GNU's definitions and examples of why proprietary software is "unethical" This is the article on GNU's website that explains why free software is important: https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html Security and privacy are "advantages" (see the section right before the conclusion).
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
That whole page is about malware, do you not believe that malware is directly related to privacy and security? Not necessarily. Take any DRM for instance. A DVD player forcing you to read that "piracy kills kittens" is neither a security issue nor a privacy concern. It is a malware through: nobody wants to waits seconds on that screen. Free software players do not show that screen because the users control the program.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
"I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom" Precisely. Freedom. Not security. Many of us are FSF members. We know what we stand for.
[Trisquel-users] Re : returned to trisquel7
The reason the article considers that statement the wrong thing to say, which you did anyways.../facepalmis because it doesn't have a strong enough meaning on what it considers should be a fundamental human right The article says "the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom". Security is not a freedom (unless you speak newspeak).
