> None of this inspires confidence that the code can be trusted. It's a shame this code isn't so good out of the box, but for all we know there are proprietary devices purporting to do the same job which also have poor…
Not according to the Ziff-Davis article they haven't: - Microsoft's Mark Russinovich presumably heard what Stallman said at his talk (which was said to be a "mostly standard talk"). Stallman's talk usually includes a…
Neither the MIT X11 license (one should be careful to identify which MIT license is being talked about as MIT has used many licenses for software) nor the modified (or 3-clause) BSD license look out for patent…
The public domain isn't recognized everywhere and licenses like Creative Commons Zero (CC0) which has a fallback of being all-permissive for regimes where a public domain won't work doesn't look out for patent…
Because Mozilla (unlike most other web browser publishers) publishes free software -- software users are allowed to run, inspect, modify, and share at any time for any reason. This is known as respecting a user's…
> This is still user-hostile bullshit and some people > at Microsoft really need to be beaten with a rubber > hose until they get it through their heads that they > don't own our devices. If you run proprietary software…
You're correct and worse still is the reception on discussion sites like these: it's sad that people encourage us to take pity on billionaire organizations that apparently don't hire and train the people needed to do…
If the Input Mono Condensed you're referring to comes from https://djr.com/input/ I recommend reviewing that font's license. https://djr.com/license/ is a non-free license (the license does not respect your software…
I don't know what Librem 5 will offer in the end, but I think your response argues a false dichotomy with zero evidence. There is no "automated transparent and trusted global support infrastructure [...that requires]…
It's important not to lump together the proprietary browsers (where the limit you speak of can only be worked around if the proprietors allow) and free software browsers which respect your software freedom, like…
Firefox has been and continues to be libre in the sense of software freedom -- free to run, inspect, share, and modify. Anyone who complains about how Mozilla runs their variant of Firefox should thank Mozilla for that…
> They [Microsoft] have lost me for life. I'll be switching to Mac and Linux from here on out. The power you rightly object to is not limited to Microsoft, or the Windows OS. That power comes from the power of…
It's a nonfree license (which alone is sufficient to make me look elsewhere for functional replacements); the license disallows commercial redistribution and contains no language that permits modification. This license…
> I do not have the time or the money to personally develop a secure web browser for the rest of the world, nor does any other individual. Your demand is unreasonable. Apparently some people do, that's why we have…
> I want a browser that is reliable, high quality, respects my privacy, and nothing else. I don't want addons baked into it. I don't want to be spied on. I recommend that you look into what you're getting with software…
How did you reach the conclusion that you had to trust ProtonVPN? > For VPN service, I trust Mozilla more than to just about anybody: they're nonprofit, have clear and transparent governance, have many mission-driven…
It's not, of course, as you point out. One can't defend the ethics or law on the basis of what's good for a particular political party. One should come to a proper understanding of relevant US law, and US jurisdictional…
I don't find it hard to identify what's so awful about amazon.com even if there's currently no other existing website to do the same job at the same scale: - I think that Javascript is widely used needlessly forcing…
Here's another interview with Wolff: Transcript should arrive here eventually: https://therealnews.com/stories/amazon-gets-3-billion-in-ny-... Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlECXGQfVyY Some of the highlights of…
Perhaps but I think that point misses the underlying issue at hand -- with proprietary software users don't get any real control over the software. Even the corporate-friendly computer press reported plenty of stories…
It's tough for me to say because I've read multiple estimates and they vary by a factor of 10. Amazon's promises https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/amazon-selects-new... are one thing, what actually happens as…
It's unfortunate that neither this BBC Micro game nor the Fort Apocalypse game are free software -- software one is free to run, inspect, share, and modify (even commercially). The Crazee Rider software seems to lack a…
You're missing the point (as are the moderators, apparently): trust is a factor only when it comes to proprietary software. If you have to "trust Apple" to deal with Apple software, then you've lost any reason to trust…
We don't commonly have figures on that, however the combination of proprietary (non-free, user subjugating) OS and application software plus built-in camera/mic hardware doesn't bode well for one's privacy.
Ugliness is subjective. Where do you get the data to back up the claim that "the number of people [who] want this is ridiculously small"?
> None of this inspires confidence that the code can be trusted. It's a shame this code isn't so good out of the box, but for all we know there are proprietary devices purporting to do the same job which also have poor…
Not according to the Ziff-Davis article they haven't: - Microsoft's Mark Russinovich presumably heard what Stallman said at his talk (which was said to be a "mostly standard talk"). Stallman's talk usually includes a…
Neither the MIT X11 license (one should be careful to identify which MIT license is being talked about as MIT has used many licenses for software) nor the modified (or 3-clause) BSD license look out for patent…
The public domain isn't recognized everywhere and licenses like Creative Commons Zero (CC0) which has a fallback of being all-permissive for regimes where a public domain won't work doesn't look out for patent…
Because Mozilla (unlike most other web browser publishers) publishes free software -- software users are allowed to run, inspect, modify, and share at any time for any reason. This is known as respecting a user's…
> This is still user-hostile bullshit and some people > at Microsoft really need to be beaten with a rubber > hose until they get it through their heads that they > don't own our devices. If you run proprietary software…
You're correct and worse still is the reception on discussion sites like these: it's sad that people encourage us to take pity on billionaire organizations that apparently don't hire and train the people needed to do…
If the Input Mono Condensed you're referring to comes from https://djr.com/input/ I recommend reviewing that font's license. https://djr.com/license/ is a non-free license (the license does not respect your software…
I don't know what Librem 5 will offer in the end, but I think your response argues a false dichotomy with zero evidence. There is no "automated transparent and trusted global support infrastructure [...that requires]…
It's important not to lump together the proprietary browsers (where the limit you speak of can only be worked around if the proprietors allow) and free software browsers which respect your software freedom, like…
Firefox has been and continues to be libre in the sense of software freedom -- free to run, inspect, share, and modify. Anyone who complains about how Mozilla runs their variant of Firefox should thank Mozilla for that…
> They [Microsoft] have lost me for life. I'll be switching to Mac and Linux from here on out. The power you rightly object to is not limited to Microsoft, or the Windows OS. That power comes from the power of…
It's a nonfree license (which alone is sufficient to make me look elsewhere for functional replacements); the license disallows commercial redistribution and contains no language that permits modification. This license…
> I do not have the time or the money to personally develop a secure web browser for the rest of the world, nor does any other individual. Your demand is unreasonable. Apparently some people do, that's why we have…
> I want a browser that is reliable, high quality, respects my privacy, and nothing else. I don't want addons baked into it. I don't want to be spied on. I recommend that you look into what you're getting with software…
How did you reach the conclusion that you had to trust ProtonVPN? > For VPN service, I trust Mozilla more than to just about anybody: they're nonprofit, have clear and transparent governance, have many mission-driven…
It's not, of course, as you point out. One can't defend the ethics or law on the basis of what's good for a particular political party. One should come to a proper understanding of relevant US law, and US jurisdictional…
I don't find it hard to identify what's so awful about amazon.com even if there's currently no other existing website to do the same job at the same scale: - I think that Javascript is widely used needlessly forcing…
Here's another interview with Wolff: Transcript should arrive here eventually: https://therealnews.com/stories/amazon-gets-3-billion-in-ny-... Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlECXGQfVyY Some of the highlights of…
Perhaps but I think that point misses the underlying issue at hand -- with proprietary software users don't get any real control over the software. Even the corporate-friendly computer press reported plenty of stories…
It's tough for me to say because I've read multiple estimates and they vary by a factor of 10. Amazon's promises https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/amazon-selects-new... are one thing, what actually happens as…
It's unfortunate that neither this BBC Micro game nor the Fort Apocalypse game are free software -- software one is free to run, inspect, share, and modify (even commercially). The Crazee Rider software seems to lack a…
You're missing the point (as are the moderators, apparently): trust is a factor only when it comes to proprietary software. If you have to "trust Apple" to deal with Apple software, then you've lost any reason to trust…
We don't commonly have figures on that, however the combination of proprietary (non-free, user subjugating) OS and application software plus built-in camera/mic hardware doesn't bode well for one's privacy.
Ugliness is subjective. Where do you get the data to back up the claim that "the number of people [who] want this is ridiculously small"?