> You make a similar point to the one RMS makes in the Ubuntu article Magic
Banana linked to, which I encourage you to read if you haven't already.
I am familiar with the story about Ubuntu's search forwarding info to Amazon.
> However, because RMS coined the term 'free software', it is generally
associated with his definition, which is very specific.
I understand that (even without the excellent shovel example) and I am
questioning the effect of it because accompanied by talks about ethics and
non-harmfulness 1) that creates the false implication of something friendly,
safe etc. 2) people easily 'buy' free/safe/secure things. In other words - it
can be exploited quite easily.
> It is a mistake to think that way.
Of course. That's why it is essential that not only Ubuntu but browsers
should also be exposed. I find it disturbing that IceCat was released by
people who are so strict and critical to ethics.
> Again though, in the context of software 'freedom' is associated with RMS's
four freedoms, and that is what we mean when we call something 'free
software'.
Which is an excellent example of exploitation of the term (considering the
results of the test).
> When Purism claims that they use a completely libre BIOS they are being
dishonest
I would be interested to read that claim as I haven't found any explicit
evidence of it. They don't claim anywhere they use Libreboot but it seems to
be a forthcoming step in future: https://puri.sm/learn/freedom-roadmap/
> I'll bet that if you bring this issue to the attention of the Abrowser and
Tor Browser developers they will be willing to clean up after Mozilla as they
already do.
I don't know how to test Tor Browser with tcpdump due to the specific way it
connects to the network. As for Abrowser - I can't find it on openSUSE's
repos, neither I find it by DDGing for it. Where can I download it?
> However, switching to Chromium because one of their developers told you
what you wanted to hear (the Mozilla developer who referred you to someone
who had some control over the policy was actually being more helpful) is not
a good solution. When it comes to privacy, no company has a worse track
record than Google.
The answer given by the Chromium dev surely is not to my taste. Yet it is
more acceptable considering that even currently Chromium's test shows it to
be a privacy respecting browser. Or can you show a test which demonstrate
that Chromium leaks data to Google? Or any other freedom related issue?
Please do share, I am interested.
As for Firefox again: of course is free in the "legal sense" (just like
Ubuntu) but if one prides oneself to be an integral part of an organization
which respects user privacy it is absolutely unacceptable to:
1) create a telemetry feature (for whatever purpose)
2) make it enabled by default (do you know that kids who can't read play
YouTube videos in browsers?)
3) make it not possible to disable without some expert fine tuning
4) close the ticket with "FIXED WORKSFORME" when demonstrated that there is a
real issue
5) give "talk to someone else" style of answer
Due to all this I am reluctant to use any product by Mozilla. Still we use it
on our phones because otherwise we would have to use Google Chrome (as I
don't know of Chromium for Android).
> Honestly, if you really care about privacy Tor Browser is your only option.
I question that too. If one is not extra careful, even through Tor one can
expose a traceable pattern. For lots of things Tor is an overkill (imo).
> You can't have privacy without anonymity.
I think they are different things. When you go to your home you have privacy.
You can have a private conversation with someone in a public location. That
doesn't mean you need to hide your face or remove the name from your front
door in order to do that, right?
