Jean Louis writes:
[^1]: Sadly it uses non-free JavaScript from various domains,
but the
site is mostly usable without it. Using NoScript I whitelist
only the
nutritionfacts.org domain itself which is necessary for the
search
feature (alternatively use "site:nutritionfacts.org" with your
fav
Only regarding to following statement, let me add my comment:
* Adam Van Ymeren [2021-01-21 18:54]:
> It's theoretically possible for a proprietary software vendor to
> make a piece of software that is more secure and more stable than a
> given piece of free software. But a proprietary vendor can
* Gregory Chamberlain via libreplanet-discuss
[2021-01-21 18:54]:
> However, educating people on the implications of software licensing is
> tricky enough as it is. Personally, I found the present video a bit
> hard to follow -- and I already know about free software!
Watch Richard Stallman's v
Blindfold vs magnifying glass.
Leslie
On 2021-01-19 23:15:34 Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> |And also another PSA on proprietary vs. open/free standards. Not sure
> |what a good visual would be for that -- maybe dirty vs. clean?
> |
--
___
librepl
On 2021-01-19 9:15 p.m., Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
* Hospital suffers a malware incursion or ransomware extortion due to
their unpatched proprietary software, and all their vital equipment
shuts down. Panic ensues.
I'm not sure I like this angle. It frames the discussion to be about
the "quali
I like your hospital plot. It's non-violent and would work well for an
animated short, I think.
The hospital computer upgrade story is a public spending nightmare and
perfectly illustrates the need for free software.
At the risk of dragging this conversation further off-topic, thank you
for brin
On 1/19/21 3:38 PM, Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2021 10:14, quiliro wrote:
>>
>> That is a very enlightening analysis. Thank you very much for your
>> input Paul .
>>
>> I would like to see some good reference to non-violent exampl
