Re: Sv: Rethinking the design of xwidgets

[Jean Louis]

* arthur miller <arthur.miller@live.com> [2020-10-21 02:25]:
> 
> > You cannot know.
> 
> Exactly. That was a point I was making. One can not know. But we
> have to;know. There is no way around knowing facts., and that iswhy
> we can not have blobs​; and that is why I said RMS is completely
> correct about that.

When I started using GNU 1999, I first had to learn about free
software, and later I found that Linux kernel does not work on every
computer, because not all device drivers were written for those
computers. So I have assumed that Linux developers are writing those
device drivers, which is also true. I was not informed about
proprietary non-free firmware files.

That I found way too late in 2016, and then switched to FSF endorsed
fully free distributions.

A free software system should teach people about free software, it
should designate:

- that BIOS is not free, that OS does not replace non-free stuff in
  BIOS, and that there are ways on specific devices to replace
  such. This warning should come with every boot, if somebody would
  ask me. Intel ME and MINIX inside have been huge security breach and
  still is, there are problems with memory and that all could have
  been as well intentional.

- that some devices will not work, because for such do not exist free
  software firmware files, that should also be made known to users
  publicly and all those notices should be very very clear.

- that users do not have control over computing on those devices or computers.

It is not enough to say: if you wish that your device works, just load
the non-free firmware.

As such simple statement does not tell the user that user does not have
control over his computing if such firmware is enabled.

> There is big difference between a fact and trust. Facts are true because of 
> their
> intrinsic nature, regardless of our preferance; wether we like that thruth or 
> not.
> Trust is something one choose by preferance. It can (and should) be based on 
> facts, but
> it does not have to, it can be based on emotions, wishes and maybe other 
> subjective
> opinion.

That is right, we do not and cannot decide for people to which group
or which software to trust. It is developing socially. Obviously that
is why there are various distributions.

Those who trust Archlinux are in slightly different group, those
trusting fully free FSF endorsed distributions are in slightly
different group, those will think more about freedom issues and
safety for users, there will be no references to proprietary software.

> Facts can be verified; trust does not have to. So no; trust is not
> good enough.

Users cannot verify facts in general, that is privilege only for small
group of good programmers knowing it all, as nobody alone can verify
what is going on in the system. There is no central authority to make
sure of that, even in past there were various organizations, maybe
also now, but they will not ensure of free software, for example Linux
Foundation is probably run and sponsored by big companies who have
slightly different interests.

Linus Torvalds have slightly different interests then Linux-libre
maintainers, there are reasons for both, and it is up to people to
decide what is more beneficial for them, like you said, based on
emotion it can as well be, based on liking Linus, it can be. It need
not be factual.

> However I feel that it was misstake to construct the argument I did, I should 
> have known
> that people will missunderstand it; I really ment to construct a 
> philosophical argument to
> point out how little we really know, not to compare Intel vs Purism per se. I 
> used names as
> illustration, I should have used X and Y. I certainly don't mean harm to 
> neither Intel nor Purism,
> discussion who is bad guys and who is good guys certainly does not belong to 
> emacs-devel
> so I appologize for that.

Thank you, I understand it now better.

> Furthermore if you are referreing to Prism when you say Intel is known to spy 
> on millions,  then I
> am think that  probablyany company approached (ordered) by the goverment 
> would probably do
> the same. Lets restrain from using company names here; and yes rms is 
> probably correct, this
> discussion is getting out of hand, so maybe better to continue it
> off  the list.

I have changed the Cc: to emacs-tangents@gnu.org for that reason.

Jean