However, they package IceCat instead of Firefox, and that's a much tougher one. Note IceCat is not very well maintained.
Nonetheless, there are a few third party repos from users with non-GNU-sanctioned software. I hope it becomes a bit like Emacs, where GNU Elpa coexists in harmony with MELPA.
TLDR: they exist, they are not expensive, they can't do 802.11ac or 802.11ad, hacking the kernel-license compatible source might violate FCC or similar regulations and could well be punished harsh in case someone complains about what you do and you'r behavior is provably non-spec-conformant.
Be careful, and choose your hardware wisely to not use binary blobs. Also I assume you use an old CPU, if you wanna go the linux-libre route. I have a system where I'm not sure yet which OS it will get, but I already (with help, and soldering) removed the Intel ME from the firmware, and might even physically remove the processor that would have executed this, or do this soft and just cut it from power or something.
Its maintainer is working on upgrading to the latest ESR now. If anyone is interested in helping maintain IceCat, please e-mail maintainers@gnu.org.
EDIT: Also what's unsexy about GNU? I'm really curious.
David Bowie made predictions far more profound than Stallman, and they came from a place of genuine concern, not tin-foil hattery of the GNU variety: https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/11/10753158/david-bowie-inte...
I'd rather have people that cared and were on the right path, picking the right battles, than assholes who are technically correct but their observations are ultimately irrelevant to the larger fight.
Most of the time when people object to GNU or rms they fail to convey that they understand what software freedom is or how continually relevant software freedom is today. I'd bet that the majority of threads on these (overwhelmingly corporate) repeater sites are easily handled by stressing how important a user's software freedom is. Every DRM, proprietary software (Windows ignores user settings, this new device from $VENDOR spies on its users, etc.) is easily dismissed by getting into the same discussion about how software freedom would allow the user to alter the software, protect their privacy, treat their friends and neighbors better by sharing improved versions of the software, inspect and modify the software (or have someone they trust do it for them), and run the programs when they want (instead of losing access when a proprietor feels like ending "support"). Snowden readily credits free software for his success in leaking sensitive NSA documents to us all (docs which still make media stories years later). Three cheers for software freedom, rms, and Snowden!
Posts like the parent post tell me sites like these are the thing losing relevance by showing how ineffective public moderation is and how unacceptable it is to dare to say something not echoed in corporate tech media.
It's not about his opinions, it's about his ineffective and misguided leadership. Why is GNU still fighting the same battles from thirty years ago when new ones have emerged that they're not even paying attention to?
GNU is becoming the PETA of software, and it's not a good look.
Also, GNU is not RMS, and RMS is not GNU.
[0]: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/
So good job.
As long as RMS is such a prominent figure the GNU/FSF organization there's no separation.
he wants to champion free software, not every just cause under the sun.
IoT devices shipping with insecure configurations is a "failure" of an infosec champion/thought-leader to step up and save us.
On the free software front, RMS contribution are mind blowing to me. I'd be proud if I can ever contribute a fraction of what he did.
The IoT thing was a perfect opportunity to step in, step up, and show some leadership. Billions of devices owned by tens or hundreds of millions of people, all running open-source software!
Instead we get this miserable hell because of his laser focus on licensing instead of responsible software.
Infosec, to their credit, were raising alarm bells from the beginning but nobody had to listen to them because they don't control anything.
GNU, however, does. If they'd extended GPL to include provisions for ensuring that the GPL software on it can be updated in a timely and secure manner, life would be a lot better for people.
And what do you expect the FSF to do? Out-lobby consumer electronics manufacturers to pass laws requiring some kind of security update guarantee? Even if they succeeded, could we call the result empowerment? Getting out from under the thumb of the manufacturer and actually _owning_ the things you own is the point, not the theoretical promise of recourse if the party which practically retains all of their power over you can be proven in court to have misbehaved, only after the abuse has taken place.
This is absolutely the same fight, and if anything the approach you're arguing for is more conciliatory, not more ‘relevant’.
There's going to be a billion variants on every little IoT device in the future and all the best intentions and enthusiasm on the part of the free software community will not be enough to provide patches to all of them.
This is something that's the responsibility of the vendor, and the GNU software license could make that a requirement for using the software.
It's not about laws, it's about licensing. If they don't like the license they're free to use someone else's software.
Having inexpensive operating system software you can dump on a cheap device without license fees is both a great thing, and also what got us into this IoT hot mess.
(Note, I came to this conclusion after reading about a bunch of his technical accomplishments, which I can see are awesome, even if the obvious megalomania evidently occasionally dampens their effects.
I think his work is fantastic, his politics are largely reasonable - but I think his self-obsession is often the driver behind a large amount of damaging and counterproductive behaviour.
Politics is the art of compromise - not convincing everybody you're a saint while alienating your natural allies.)
I’m not a fan of him personally, and many of his technical decisions have been questionable, but he’s achieved a lot, and the world is better for the FSF’s existence.
I wouldn't have any problem with the 'GNU/Linux' idea if it wasn't so obviously part of a greater pattern - when he talks about it, he talks about GNU being the primary contributor - but he typically uses the singular, even when the plural would refer to GNU, and the singular refers to himself.
I also think the world is better for the FSF, but I cant help but wonder, what would the world be like if the FSF was headed by somebody who felt it more natural to think in terms of 'we', as opposed to 'I'? Even somebody not nearly as technically accomplished, charismatic, and intelligent? I think ultimately, it's the ideas, of knowledge as the common wealth of humankind, rather than the curious personality of RMS, that gave the GNU project its power - and ultimately, it's the limitations of RMS that hold it back.
Not at all. Android depends on tons of GNU software.
As a GNU hacker (and co-maintainer of GNU Guix) statements like this make me sad. It is very unfortunate that Richard Stallman's personality is casting a shadow on the GNU project, which was started by him but is really a loose connection of projects that share ideas that were outlined in the GNU Manifesto.
I see GNU Guix in the tradition of other GNU software like Emacs or the Hurd that aim to give users more power and to remove arbitrary limitations. Emacs is probably the epitome of a hackable system that lets the user shape the software according to their own needs to an extend that is extreme and rarely found in any other system.
The Hurd aims to allow regular users to do things that in traditional Unices requires super-user privileges. It aims to remove arbitrary obstacles to free users from the unhealthy power dynamics of the user/admin division.
Guix gives users powerful tools to manage their software environments without having to beg admins, and to easily package software variants without having to depend on professional distributors. At the same time no user can harm another user on shared systems. Guix gives users the ability to take advantage of software freedom, by making it really easy to hack on software in a user-controlled reliable system.
When seen from this perspective, the GNU system that individual software projects are contributing to is a collection of tools that liberate users from helplessness due to unnecessary restrictions. This common goal defines the modern GNU project these days, and I think it is very unfortunate to overlook this because of Richard Stallman and his quirks, his sometimes dictatorial style, or his harmful attitudes towards important social aspects of free software.
I appreciate Richard's past work immensely, but I do not consider him representative of the GNU project that I work on, nor do I think his leadership style is benefiting the project.
Give GNU a chance based on the project's merits and its goals. Long live Free Software --- copyleft and non-copyleft alike!
The longer he's the figurehead of GNU, the longer he has any say in your projects, the longer he'll poison the well. This "joke" fiasco touched off a firestorm of commentary from people that are quite clear that he's been highly problematic for decades now.
You don't want someone toxic running GNU. Microsoft managed to shed their sweaty gorilla and look what's happened to them. They're not fully redeemed, but they stopped fighting and destroying.
Just as the early FSF cared not for tradition, for history, for the investment of time and energy on the part of others, they should not care today if they want to be a radical force for change. Keep that spirit. Tear down anything worth destroying because it gets in the way of what's right.
The important question, the only question, for an organization that promotes actual change is what can he do to improve things tomorrow.
Sadly we've lost Aaron Swartz, but that's the caliber of person you need today. Fearless, energetic, passionate, and fighting the right fights from the front lines. Aaron will be missed, but the FSF and GNU should be looking for, encouraging, motivating the next Aarons no matter what their background is.
I'm still wishing for a world where all electronics hardware and software is open source. Can't really visualize an industry like that be economically functional, but I hope someone does. My hope is with GNU.
That's what GNU is doing today with their stubborn fights about licensing when there's far bigger problems emerging.
How about a right to privacy? How about a right to timely patches for their Linux-based phones? How about a right to repair hardware running GPL software? How about a right to know if your device has security faults?
I can make software that mines the personal emails of dissidents, runs facial recognition on hacked webcams, and ruins lives, and that's all fine as far as GNU's concerned so long as I give out the source code to anyone who asks.
That seems...problematic.
* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebo...
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-testimony.html
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.htm...
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/judge-internet-usage.html
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallmans-law.html
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.htm...
So your position is that GNU should both get rid of Richard Stallman and start addressing this stuff. Clearly, you are not basing this upon Richard Stallman addressing these very things for quite a few years now via the GNU WWW site.
Destroying your phone, not using a web browser, and eating vegan or whatever isn't something everyone can or should do.
If he wants to be some obscure mountain-top philosopher, that's fine, but being the GNU head at the same time is problematic.
GNU utilities, are not only unsexy, they are bloated and messy, and prone to failure; the GNU implementations (coreutils: grep, cat, tail, etc) of standard UNIX tools are not done with simplicity in mind.
But hey, after all GNU is Not Unix. For those of us, who really appreciate the UNIX philosophy still have OpenBSD, which is the only light in a world of chaos, in my opinion.
I've heard people say how GNU code is bloated and messy many times before, but never that they're prone to failure. I've never had any failure myself with any GNU code. Can you give some examples of failures you've experienced?
Also, I'm looking at the coreutils source right now, and it's not as messy as I was expecting. true.c is only a pageful with 80 lines, many of which are simply because of the license comment and the usage() function for --help. cat.c and tail.c also seem reasonably understandable. Biggest complaint I can make is that there's cases where spaces and tabs are mixed in the indentation, but I've long resigned myself to expect that in projects that have more than 1 major contributor.
I do, however, think that glibc and gcc are pretty messy. I tried looking for the definition of fopen() in openbsd's libc and found it in less than 30 seconds by grepping. I still haven't found glibc's. gcc seems to rely heavily on its own extensions, because I don't understand what's going on here:
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
toplev toplev (NULL, /* external_timer */
true /* init_signals */);
return toplev.main (argc, argv);
}
int
toplev::main (int argc, char **argv)
{
You know what? Nevermind. Comparing the code for true.c and cat.c between glibc and openbsd's libc, I do rather like how clear openbsd is in its code. Damn. Sexy is a good word. Now I understand why people speak so well of it. I don't even need grep, the source file hierarchy is so clear. Looking back at GNU's true.c, I don't even understand half of what's going on there in those 80 lines, and it turns out that true.c is also the source for false.c, it just #include "true.c".
TL;DR I agree that GNU utilities are messy. I'm not sure of the bloated aspect, because I do like that utilities have internationalized documentation built-in, but that seems to be bloat by openbsd's standards. And I wouldn't know of them being prone to failure, because I never had one with them.
EDIT: Huh. I wanted to reply to Hello71, but there's no reply link under his post. Anyone know why? Anyway, yeah, I saw a comment in the file mentioning that over a line that referred to stdout. Can't check now because I'm away from the computer. I didn't really understand the reason though.
(if you're actually trying it at home, remember that "true" is virtually always a builtin. AFAIK there is no legitimate way to have shell builtin true return non-zero. (overwriting the command doesn't count :P))
Anyway, yeah, there's a commented line mentioning that:
/* Note true(1) will return EXIT_FAILURE in the
edge case where writes fail with GNU specific options. */
atexit (close_stdout);
$ /bin/true --version >& -
I agree with you however. Having worked with the code gnu relies a lot on macros & a lot of auto generated code. The code is a big mess, imposible to tackle if you dont spend a huge amount of time on it.
A lot of symbols are generated through #defines and pastting (X macros) so you cant grep shit for one.
Just have a look at changelog for coreutils [0]. Sure it's very long, especially if you're not following its releases, sure it's full of weird edge cases that you might've never encountered (I'm certainly way too lazy to go as far as to look for those rare bugs that I stumbled upon years and years ago but there definitely were some), but this, IMO, is a great illustration of how GNU (or, rather, GNU coreutils) code is "prone to failure"—mainly because it sometimes tries to do way too much.
[0] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/plain/NEWS
And this is coming from a genx open source / Linux guy. What it must look like to the current generation?!?!
(edit: I understand the why of it, and even agree on principle, but it still prevents me from running linux-libre on most of my systems)
I did, and it makes most things quite a bit easier.
Edit: I did after struggling with hw requiring nonfree blobs of different shapes and size for a couple of years. Currently I was lucky to get my hands on a system that I can run using linux-libre and the only component I have "extra" is a usb wifi card.
The only workstation that boots with entirely free software is like, the Talos II PowerPC, with a minimum cost of $5000.
Everyone else requires a binary blob somewhere. Either a UEFI blob, BIOS blob, some kind of driver somewhere, or whatnot. Raspberry Pi, AMD, Intel, everybody.
And before the Talos II, I don't think an "Open PC" devoid of proprietary binary blobs even existed. At least, something that is reasonably modern (ie: 64-bit, decent security, decent support with modern OSes)
It is 64bit, and runs pretty much anything from (from what I can tell, but not sure, due to CHMPXCHG16B) Windows 10, over FreeBSD to Android. Probably even something like QNX.
Yes, you might not call this reasonably modern, but according to the hard facts you listed as qualifiers for being reasonably modern, they tick off.
And yes, it's running coreboot, and at least CLI/linux-framebuffer arch linux works. I didn't yet get to setting the rest of the system up, but considering I bought it specifically for high-security operation, as the ME can be physically removed without loosing more than the build-in Ethernet port, I'm not pressed to do it anytime soon.
Edit: I'm pretty sure I followed [0], which leads me to the new conclusion that I did use libreboot, a more strict version of coreboot (think coreboot=Archlinux, libreboot=GNU Guix), and had to fiddle with the question whether the open-source video bios would work. This confuses me a little, as I remembered buying an X61s, not an X60s, but from the fact that it booted after flashing, I deduce it had to be an X60.
[0]: https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/#list-of-supported-think...
You can augment the package collection that comes with Guix with a simple environment variable, so the insistence on software libre on the side of the project should not represent a technical hurdle.
I'd guess that GNU Linux-libre project maintainers have no objection to distributing free software firmware as part of Linux-libre.
"Gnu's Not Unix": A recursive acronym used as a pun about an operating system from the 1970s, existing solely as a reflection of an aging neckbearded hippie hacker's personal philosophy about software, that is pronounced "GUH-NEW".
[1] - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0128358800.shtml
[2] - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150321/13350230396/while...
[3] - One example of this could be Amazon's ridiculous rental of digital books, since it can only work by downloading the file to your device and then charging you more for it to prevent your device from deleting it. Another example is YouTube Red, to be able to download videos the app already downloads for free anyway to be able to stream, and also so that it won't pause videos when you move the android app to the background.
(I'm a Schemer and I'd love to have a Lisp machine user environment using Scheme.)