You are twisting my words again and again. And you seem to twist even what
your favorite authorities say.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/20140407-geneva-tedx-talk-free-software-free-society
Watch the video:
4:20-6:20 - Does that create the impression that it is possible to have that
also in free software? - No. It is explicitly accenting on proprietary
software, explaining how bad it is and there is not a single mention that
free software (like Firefox/forks) can also report that you are "reading page
5" (through telemetry) to the "non-profit" organization Mozilla corporation.
> But the free software movement does not believe that "free software implies
safety":
6:20-6:32 - "How do you stop being a victim?... you can come join us in the
free world we've built"
Doesn't that say that in the world of free software you won't be a victim? -
Yes, it does.
So I don't pretend anything. I point out what I see. And I may be wrong, so
as I suggested in another post - make a poll in a separate thread, show the
video and ask people:
Do you think that free software is safer than proprietary?
a) Yes, because more people have checked it
b) No, it is equally unsafe
Then see the results.
> It would be equally incorrect to compare proprietary software with a
fictitious idea of free software as perfect. Every nontrivial program has
bugs, and any system, free or proprietary, may have security errors. To err
is human, and not culpable.
Deliberately creating telemetry for continuous and detailed data collection
is not a bug or inadvertent imperfection.
> But proprietary software developers frequently disregard gaping holes, or
even introduce them deliberately.
So do free software developers (Mozilla), yet your favorite bible doesn't say
a word about it. They would rather tell you "use IceCat and look no further".
When someone talks about ethics but is not completely honest that is not
ethics.
