Back

@mira I mean, I think there is a point where adherence to FOSS principles can become absurd — like Debian refusing to include non-free drivers as an option in their main easy to find installer for many years, thus essentially stopping most people with a modern laptop that doesn't have an ethernet port from even installing it. The mission of FOSS should be to improve people's software freedom as much as possible, and putting artificial limitations on your software to prevent people from doing non-free things not only actually *decreases* their freedom (because people should be free to make mistakes and use crappy software if they have to or choose to), but, in completely preventing people from using such software, it actually makes it so that it's impossible for people to improve their rights even a little bit if it isn't possible for them to be *perfectly* free. It's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good — saying if that if someone isn't willing to go 100% FOSS then they don't get any software freedom. Or, for another example, the Libre version of the Linux kernel refusing to allow microcode updates. Your computer is already going to be running proprietary micro code and firmware that you have no control over and no idea what the fuck it's doing. So allowing manufacturers to upgrade their microcode or firmware literally isn't changing the situation at all. Even if what you are objecting to is them being able to load new microcode whenever they want in either case you're using proprietary microcode that you know nothing about and have no control over that was loaded without your permission so not allowing any new microcode literally doesn't help with anything and only makes your system less secure.

@mira a lot of FOSS purism that manifests itself as locking down free software and limiting its capabilities honestly has the same Vibe as moralistic rich leftists decrying poor people for buying from unethical but cheap places like Walmart or Amazon, or SWERFs getting angry at sex workers for having to work in an industry where they are exploited, as if that's their fault or their lives will get any better if they were stopped from having that option.

It's trying to prevent people from being exploited or participating in exploitative systems by restricting their choices, instead of by providing non-exploitative options —escape hatches — ignoring the fact that there is a *reason* people choose to be exploited (most of the time), and so simply restricting their choices when there isn't another option available isn't making them freer, it's hurting them. It's victim blaming, essentially — "you're wrong for making the choice to be exploited when practically speaking you didn't have any other option" — and it's fundamentally confused. You don't make people freer by policing their choices in order to prevent them from choosing exploitative options, you make them freer by giving them non-exploitative options and making a world where they can choose not to be exploited.

@mira you can't increase someone's freedom by policing them, preventing them from making certain choices when they have to.

@anarchopunk_girl@kolektiva.social word. i am foss purist as in ideological goal and trying to live by that in my life as much as i can (accumulating freedom), but i won't police other people for using proprietary stuff

@mira yeah and like trying to maximize everyone's freedom is an excellent goal in software as in everywhere else! But you can't maximize people's freedom by preventing them from making certain choices, if those choices are necessary for them. You can't police people into being free, that's authoritarian logic. You don't prevent worker exploitation by preventing people from getting jobs lol

@anarchopunk_girl
So where exactly is Debian preventing people from certain choices?

I get your point. But Debian's policy in Main has certain arguments on it's side. Not any of it is 'preventing' anyone from anything.
People use Mint, Ubuntu, … you name it, and Debian encourages
such derivatives.

@mira

@kurth @mira I mean multiple times I've tried to install Debian on a random junk ultrabook and found it quite literally impossible to properly do because of the chicken and egg problem of having no ethernet port and no ethernet to USB adapter and a Wi-Fi card that requires proprietary drivers

@anarchopunk_girl
Sorry if that came on too harsh. I just find it a little odd when sound argumented policies be instantly drawn into a ideology corner. With extreme leftist comparisons and such bullshit. Let alone, it is FREE SOFTWARE, nobody is forcing it on anyone

@mira

@kurth @mira just because there are other free software options available doesn't mean that making your free software unusable to someone who isn't willing to commit to going "whole hog" isn't restricting their freedom with respect to your project, that sort of "just go somewhere else" argument isn't particularly convincing to me.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by comparisons to "extreme leftist" stuff or what you're referring to as "bullshit," are you taking issue with the fact that I'm using analogies that come from a leftist analytical context?

Also what are (or rather, were) Debian's sound arguments for not having non free firmware installed on the default netinstall iso?

@kurth @mira I'm not taking it for granted I certainly greatly respect all of the work and effort that people are putting in to create and maintain such a huge and long-running and well respected project as deviant but I don't think that means that their choices in policies are above criticism and I'm honestly confused as to why you would think so. Just because it's being provided for free doesn't mean one can't criticize what's being done, the whole idea of beggars can't be choosers is actually an extremely conservative, reactionary idea — it's the core of the idea that since your ancestors or society or whatever provides so much for you you can't possibly critique it or suggest improvements to it.