Hacker News Reader

Comment by medo-bear | Hacker News Reader

what does adapting to the times mean? FSF and GNU seem to be about fundamentals of computing and software. have these fundamentals changed?

View on HN

The line between hardware and software has been heavily blurred in the past 30 years. The FSF continue to draw an arbitrary line where none can be drawn, and then say only one side needs to be Free. Since there is no longer any clear line, this gives them the freedom (ha) to deceptively do so in a way that is convenient to them and makes their followers believe they are getting some kind of special Freedom, when in reality the FSF is just tweaking the definitions to make it work.

Then they spin narratives about how this is important for not just freedom, but also security/privacy/etc, while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy, as is made evident by the linux-libre issue, among many others. Actual assessment of the privacy/security impact of proprietary firmware on users is a much more nuanced topic, but the FSF are not interested in nuance, they just say "blobs (that you can see) bad".

>Then they spin narratives about how this is important for not just freedom, but also security/privacy/etc, while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy

i think i have always held the opinion that for FSF and GNU their concept of security was "security through free software". that is free software (according to how its understood by them) comes first

There is no nuance there. Without free software there is no software freedom. If blobs are allowed at all that is already a measure to have a system that works in practice, but in no way makes it the position against closed software and blobs wrong.

The people criticizing the FSF here act as if Stallman were wrong about these issues because he said it back then already. While in reality again and again he was right about how user freedoms are limited when the principles he outlined are not followed.

To give Intel a way to distribute closed source software updates to your processor is definitely a security risk. And we know for certain the actors in the USA that try to use those security risks for their surveillance programs. Don't act like this world does not exist.

But you already run a processor with the very real possibility of backdoors from that very same entity. And let’s be honest, a zero day due to a CPU bug is orders of magnitude more likely to cause real harm than the fantasy of state actors deploying some blobs to your computer and have a look at my meme collection. 100% is never achievable but I much prefer having 85% than nothing.

I too settle for less bad dictatorship as means of governance.

They aren't taking away Intel's ability to push updates to people's computers, because they never had that ability. What the FSF and that Linux fork are doing is taking away users' right to be informed about security vulnerabilities in their system so they can make the choice whether to trust Intel's update or not. By withholding that information they are effectively eliminating the choice, and restricting users' freedom.

That's not true. If distros package closed source firmware updates the manufacturer has the ability to provide updates to people's computer via that system. I mean, that's the whole point and in a trustworthy environment that's a good thing. Maybe have a look at https://wiki.debian.org/Microcode#CPU_microcode_non-freeness (I'm not sure whether I'm just misinterpreting your comment or whether there is a knowledge gap, just to make sure we talk about the same thing :) ).

> By withholding that information they are effectively eliminating the choice, and restricting users' freedom.

You are mixing up agency and software freedom, it's clear that you won't see eye to eye with the FSF as long as you do so.

I'm not even vigorously defending not showing the note about existing firmware updates, if Guix really does so. I'd prefer a note. Just what it would mean and how problematic closed firmware would be seemed like it needed a clarification here.

> If distros package closed source firmware updates the manufacturer has the ability to provide updates to people's computer via that system.

That is not what linux-libre is doing/refusing to do. What linux-libre is doing is censoring a message to their users that their microcode is out of date and their CPU has security vulnerabilities. They could've just left that in and let users make the choice whether to manually install the microcode updates or not.

> You are mixing up agency and software freedom

Agency is more important than software freedom. The FSF's problem is precisely their blind focus on "software freedom" when the definition of "software" can't even be precisely defined any more, to the detriment of everything else that affects users.

>Agency is more important than software freedom. The FSF's problem is precisely their blind focus on "software freedom" when the definition of "software" can't even be precisely defined any more, to the detriment of everything else that affects users

your refusal to accept FSFs right to adhere to its principles is bordering on the extreme. yet you constantly lob insults toward them as an organization. it does not help your points at all. they obviously hold different values to you. i think FSF is ok as long as they are clear about what they are doing and they are not trying to trick anyone. you have done absolutely nothing to demonstate otherwise in this whole exchange and instead you keep slinging FUD. i will repeat my question that i have asked so many times: has GNU or FSF anywhere claimed that they take a security-centric approach? as far as i know they have always taken a free-software approach. that they refuse to bend their principles to infantile screams is a big plus in my books

> while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy

IIRC Stallman criticized Ubuntu for collecting users' search info by default-- something they used to do[1].

It's unfortunate to see a call to nuance paired with an exaggerated claim that is so easily disproven.

1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com