"I think it is legitimate to have the choice of a kernel that will never load non-free software."

so far no one has tried to produce a kernel like that. i personally would consider it a violation of freedom-0, like building in drm that one must then patch and recompile, if it were deliberate or desired by the authors. at best, its like"trusted computing platform" which is a joke from a security standpoint-- it merely obfuscates and unsucessfully blocks the user (a violation of other freedoms, unless it can be justified by the user from a security standpoint.) so you would have to define what you mean be"legitimate." (meaning essentially,"it doesnt bother me personally?")

note that from our exchange, oliva doesnt seem to like this status either. it was a false assumption (on my part and others here) that they tried to produce such a kernel-- and the reason i emailed him was to confirm or rectify that assumption.

the antix libre kernel (according to dolphin, from what i can tell) falls into the category of"based on linux-libre" and cannot load non-free firmware.

as for technical ways around that, i believe that core would need to *start with* a different blob-free kernel such as debians (or wait for linux-libre to find a way to fix this. its been 7 years though.) if theres another way i would be interested. in the process, youd have to decide if debians blob free kernel is"libre enough" for antix. its free software, but youd have to decide (against the findings of fsfla) that calling it an"error" in the log does not count as"inducing the user to install non-free software." for me it is"close enough" to libre, but there is room for further improvement.

Is it a software patch plus a config parameter that can be switched on and off?

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/deblob-main"
linktext was:"https://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/softwar ... eblob-main"
====================================


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/deblob-check"
linktext was:"https://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/softwar ... blob-check"
====================================


Oh dear, we're sorry about the inconvenience but we can't fix, or provide a ui enabling affected users to workaround/whitelist, because ___________ ?
(yah, there's no guarantee the script execution context is an interactive shell)

and debian kernel is bad, because it logs the errors introduced by our meddling as... errors.
They're not REALLY errors you know. They're more like"little white lies", for your protection, to keep ya FREE.

/s

yeah I misspoke earlier.  the antiX-gnu kernels are"libre".  I mixed up some terms earlier.

theres got to be a happy middle, thats somewhere between flawless politics and common sense. not that we are ever going to get there-- the problem with common sense is the slippery slope down to the status quo (and worse.) the problem with flawless politics is they result in a world that only works so long as its imaginary (spherical cow for congress!)

i believe quite a few free software types are closer to the middle: they actually use computers for other things besides reading mailing lists and compiling source code. stallman does *video chat* now! meanwhile the open source/zdnet crowd is busy trying to tell me why microsoft is the best thing that ever happened to ubuntu... yeah, thats almost as useless to me as a kernel with"no" firmware, so the libre guys win (with me) much of the time. free software is really like being vegan, which i dont believe can be healthy for everyone-- while open source is like calling a salad with chicken"vegetarian," which is just plain nonsense.

i actually like the idea of free software, i dont like when its rebranded and reduced to more of a cynical gimmick than an actual promise. im still not vegan and if the word"honey" is somewhere on the menu, im not going to throw them away. i might get different menus next time, if it matters to the customers.

figosdev wrote: "I think it is legitimate to have the choice of a kernel that will never load non-free software."

so far no one has tried to produce a kernel like that. i personally would consider it a violation of freedom-0,

That is totally absurd.   Why would you condemn  people for building a kernel you don't like and don't want to use?  No one is forcing you to use it yet you want to prevent others from doing what they want to do in the name of"freedom".   Why do you want to make it impossible for people to ensure their kernel never runs non-free software?    That is not freedom, don't pretend it is.  Don't pretend that forcing people to run non-free software or tricking them into running non-free software is some sort of"freedom".

Note the word"choice" in what I originally said.    I don't want to run Windows but I'm not going prevent others from running Windows and call it"freedom".   People should be free to do whatever the Hell they want to do as long as it doesn't impinge on the freedom or rights of others.   How is the creation and use of a kernel that will never load non-free software impinging on your freedom or your rights one iota?

Someone intentionally reducing their own choices is an important form of freedom.  For example, an alcoholic may want to enforce a rule that no alcohol be brought into their home.   This is their right.  Forcing them to allow alcohol into their home in the name of freedom is absurd.  Likewise, people should be able to run a kernel they are confident will never run non-free software even if non-free software gets accidentally installed by their package manager (or by skulduggery).   How is the world more free if these people can be easily forced or tricked into running non-free software?

That is totally absurd. Why would you condemn people for building a kernel you don't like and don't want to use? No one is forcing you to use it yet you want to prevent others from doing what they want to do in the name of"freedom". Why do you want to make it impossible for people to ensure their kernel never runs non-free software?

this is not the simple, cut and dried issue youre making it to be. its actually a really incredible philosophical question on whats really free and whats really shackled. watch what happens if i leave your text unedited except for one noun and one other word, and you tell me if what i said is really"absurd":

That is totally absurd. Why would you condemn people for building a *module* you don't like and don't want to use? No one is forcing you to use it yet you want to prevent others from doing what they want to do in the name of"freedom". Why do you want to make it impossible for people to ensure their kernel runs non-free software?

two words are different, and now instead of you condemning what i said, its condemning your position.

theres a VERY BIG difference between not supporting non-free software (which is really part of what"free software" is about) and putting in measures to block it.

its a lot harder to block software in a freedom-respecting way than it is to simply not support it (or remove it.)

this is a nuanced issue and i havent jumped on you about anything. so unless you think youre going to change my position that easily, or unless you think your appeal is really anything but a statement based on your feelings (in which context your feelings are totally legit, but youre saying that my statement is"absurd" and seems to imply that what i said misses the point of free software-- note that oliva and i already agree on this aspect of the matter, fwiw)

im actually on the side of free software here. not the side of open source, not the side of proprietary anything. its VERY difficult to block the loading of non-free software in a freedom respecting way. think about why is my advice, but you can ignore what i said or call it"absurd" if you prefer. i didnt attack you, though. i wanted to point that out.

no worries of course. i actually respect that youre passionate about the matter, even if i disagree with your position so far. but i believe i have very good reason to disagree fwiw, and the question is important to me, whether the answer is right or not. its absolutely fine with me if we dont come to agreement on this, i wasnt trying to change anyones position on the philosophy of it. i do think it is worth consideration by anyone that cares about such things. if i were doing a class on free software, id love to include this question for everyone.

another thing youre missing in what i said is the reality of the situation-- linux-libre is technically"a choice" because the source is available (but i hate that answer, its what everyone says after making something like systemd for people that prefer sysv, or gnome 3 to the people that will have to eventually build mate) but its also not much of a choice because its prohibitively difficult for *too many* people to swap out a kernel (especially in a live distro) and because the free software community really only supports linux-libre officially.

there is no real choice of linux-libre and linux-libre-that-can-load-blobs within the officially endorsed ecosystem (if there were i would consider this less of an issue) and even though i use a blob-free kernel, i use one the fsf probably wont ever endorse because they dont like its error message.

again, not supporting vs blocking software is an area where if you lean a tiny bit one way, its probably freedom and a tiny bit the other way, its possibly a freedom-disrespecting restriction that goes against the whole philosophy of free software. im sorry to say that the reason its probably taken 9 years to fix this bug is that free software can ask a question so annoying and pedantic that stallman cant answer it.

but i know thats not true, im being just a little cynical to amuse myself. the rest is actually said in complete sincerity.

in the hopes you understand my position better (whether you agree or not) lets use wine as an example. this is the most honest metaphor i can come up with right now--

1. i create a security suite that has a feature that detects and removes wine (or stops it from running any programs, whatever.) so far? fine.

2. now i install this suite in my super-duper-libre distro (context: i personally remove non-free firmware from refracta to make my distro. i just delete it, like the debian kernel does to non-free blobs.) i also turn the wine-blocker on by default. so far? fine.

3. now i make it so that you have to be root to turn the feature off, or remove the suite, or you even have to reboot. its getting inconvenient, but you still have the freedom to run wine. by now the fsf has promoted the suite and feature, and its the default in every fsf-recommended distro. so far? fine.

4. it really comes down to how honest we are about whether this is truly something the user can turn off or not. not writing wine (or supporting windows binaries) in the first place? thats not shackling the user. making it so the user has to get around the work ive added to the mess just to run wine?

thats really not a habit you want to get into in the name of freedom. (but it still depends how you do it, because once you introduce security there are endless excuses and even some good reasons. also--"think of the children!")

when stallman starts saying things essentially like"we can make this more freedom-respecting if we kill the update circuit and turn the proprietary nvram code into a proprietary rom module" (paraphrasing for sure) even with stallman, the more extraordinary the claim, the more it deserves scrutiny, debate and cross-examination.

no one should assume this one is obvious, thats the first wrong step. you have to make absolutely certain that any lock on a piece of software is not a lock for the user. its too easy to dress up freedom-threatening anti-features as something the user wants. doing that in the name of freedom changes not a thing-- and i wouldnt start liking tpm as a concept if it only ran signed free software.

and i never made myself the arbiter of this as you charged me with. i have thought about it a lot, and i think its a terrible idea to do it on purpose, how that turned into me forbidding someone-- by saying that it goes against free software im forbidding anyone? no. im just saying that it (probably) goes against software freedom to do that. even if stallman said that he has every right to an opinion, and hes got way more pull than i do. i reckon i have a similar right to say its a bad idea, and i dont feel bad about it.

2 relevant links, toward supporting my assertion that"broken by design" constitutes a cruel joke at users' expense
(and the expense of help request respondants):

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was"system-can-t-find-this-laptop-s-soundcard-solved-t4675.html"
linktext was:"system-can-t-find-this-laptop-s-soundca ... t4675.html"
====================================


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was"problems-starting-wifi-using-antix-core-t5940.html"
linktext was:"problems-starting-wifi-using-antix-core-t5940.html"
====================================

figosdev wrote: two words are different, and now instead of you condemning what i said, its condemning your position.

This is NOT my position.  Did you even bother to read the rest of my post?  

I've got no problem with people using Windows, I have no problem with people using binary blobs and I also have no problem with people not using Window and I also have no problem with people not using binary blobs.   This is not deep and philosophical.    People choose to do all sorts of crazy things that I'm not interested in doing.  As long as it is not harming me then it is none of my business.  It sounds like you want to ban people (or chastise them unfairly as being unfree) for doing something you don't like.  

If people want to run their systems in a way that ensures they are not running non-free software, that is totally up to them and it is none of your dang business.   Making it your business by declaring they are somehow violating freedom is ridiculous.  If you don't like their software then DON'T USE IT.   You have no right to demand they make their software to your personal specifications.

It is extremely difficult to violate freedom by bring more Free and open source software into the world**, yet this is the extraordinary claim you are making.   As long as you or anyone else tries to dictate what other people should do with their own time, their own software, and their own equipment, and you say you are doing it in the name of freedom, I will speak out against it.

Trying to control the behavior of others when that behavior has no impact on you is the essence of curtailing freedom, not enhancing it.  If you want to demand that people build software to your personal specifications then you should pay them.  Don't assault them with these ridiculous charges.

It doesn't matter one whit if users can enable or disable features.  All that matters is that you are not forced to use the software.  You are free to use it or not.  That is your freedom.  Your freedom does not extend to dictating how they should write their software or tell them what it should do.  That is entirely up to them.  If you feel you are being coerced into using software you don't like, that is a different issue.   But the problem there is the coercion, not the existence of software you don't like.

Freedom-0 is  the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.   You seem to be confusing this with dictating what the program can and can't do.  You dictating what the program can do is not part of freedom-0.  I'm free to create a program called happy-happy-joy-joy that effectively does"sudo rm -rf /".   You are free to use it or not use it.  If I trick you into using it or I coerce you into using it then the problem is in the trick or the coercion, not the software.

** as long as you are not forced or tricked into using it, like a virus.

"This is NOT my position.  Did you even bother to read the rest of my post?  "

i quoted it verbatim, and said i changed two words. i read your entire post-- did the first time i quoted it (unedited) in your own words, not represent your position?

This is not deep and philosophical.    People choose to do all sorts of crazy things that I'm not interested in doing.

whether something constitutes freedom or restriction *is* philosophical, especially when it comes to things like *ensuring* people are free (even if they want to be shackled? then what?) but youre not interested in viewpoints that counter yours--

* first you attacked what i said as absurd
* then you attacked what i said as arrogant (who am i? a guy with an opinion that backed it up with explanation you are giving no credit to whatsoever)
* now you attack my integrity by saying i didnt even read your post (to be fair i doubt you really intend it that way)

whats the point of us talking, man? youre obviously not going to be remotely fair to an opposing viewpoint at all. heck you"pooh pooh" the entire thing with"this is not philosophical."
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh"
linktext was:"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh"
====================================
its just another way of discrediting me (thats makes 4 times now) without addressing what i said.

As long as it is not harming me then it is none of my business.

this is disingenuous at best, youre clearly making it your business and youre attacking people that disagree.

It sounds like you want to ban people (or chastise them unfairly as being unfree)

the first part is simply made up, and the second is unfounded and a misunderstanding about my intentions ive already tried to relieve you of.

if youre going to accuse me of things i deny, then defend with good explanation, only to have you repeat the accusation, should i just stop talking to you and leave the forum or what?

ive dont nothing to deserve this.

for doing something you don't like.  

i dont want to be further attacked, but this entire matter is about whether"libre" is sticking to its own principles or not. therefore my opinion (and explanation for it) is perfectly about WHAT CONSTITUTES"libre."

you keep twisting my words to make them easier to attack, but youre inventing things i never said.

i even quoted you properly, changed two words (and noted it) and you threw it back it me like it was a misquote (only if you didnt read it...)

If people want to run their systems in a way that ensures they are not running non-free software, that is totally up to them and it is none of your dang business.

ive already responded to this. since youre only talking to a false strawman version of what i said and WONT LISTEN when i say"thats not what i said OR meant" then im not going to continue a conversation with someone that insists on putting words in my mouth.

this is patently unfair-- and since you claim that its not even any of your business, WHY BOTHER telling me whether its mine?

i dont get that at all.

Making it your business by declaring they are somehow violating freedom is ridiculous.

HOW is it ridiculous? the libre kernel was obviously chosen over its being libre.

if something makes it less libre--

well of course this is pointless.

If you don't like their software then DON'T USE IT.

this is called"hobsens choice" and it is extremely cynical-- you guys have rejected systemd and they said the same thing. was it not inconvenient? was it not unnecessary?

should people tell you to just"take it or leave it" like some child who prefers chocolate chip cookies because hes allergic to peanuts?

"shut up kid, take it and be grateful."

You have no right to demand they make their software to your personal specifications.

i made no such demand, you are manufacturing it.

It is extremely difficult to violate freedom by bring more Free and open source software into the world**, yet this is the extraordinary claim you are making.

its not an extraordinary claim at all, ive tried to explain why.

As long as you or anyone else tries to dictate

how many times are you going to falsely accuse me of this fabrication? ive lost count.


you are conflating me having any position at all with trying to dictate the actions of others.

when a mailing list (debian list) or forum (this one) does that, what they really mean is

"shut up, no one cares what you think."

given your position here, i can only take this hostility to mean i am leaving now.

this not a discussion forum, this is an absurdity.

but i will finish replying to your attack.

what other people should do with their own time, their own software, and their own equipment, and you say you are doing it in the name of freedom, I will speak out against it.

funny, you are taking for yourself the right to condemn me for doing EXACTLY what you are doing.

you are *condemning me* for expressing my evaluation of whether software that claims to be libre achieves its goals.

now go condemn some bug reports-- thats basically what youre doing.

Trying to control the behavior of others when that behavior has no impact on you is the essence of curtailing freedom,

thats really what youre doing now by dishonestly reframing everything ive said.

If you want to demand that people build software to your personal specifications then you should pay them.  Don't assault them with these ridiculous charges.

like youre doing repeatedly? i didnt demand anything.

It doesn't matter one whit if users can enable or disable features.

if thats true, then drm should be alright.

All that matters is that you are not forced to use the software.  You are free to use it or not.  

then drm should be fine.

That is your freedom.  Your freedom does not extend to dictating how they should write their software or tell them what it should do.

um, i am pretty sure i can talk about whether software fits the needs it claims to fit or not.

If you feel you are being coerced into using software you don't like, that is a different issue.   But the problem there is the coercion, not the existence of software you don't like.

THATS WHAT I WAS SAYING.

Freedom-0 is  the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.   You seem to be confusing this with dictating what the program can and can't do.

no, it is quite relevant whether software BLOCKS you or simply doesnt do what you want. i said that too.

You dictating what the program can do is not part of freedom-0.

me dictating what the program can do is freedom 1-- the freedom to study change the software (but not talk about whats good or bad about it, obviously. i will have to change it without comment or critique, i suppose.)

I'm free to create a program called happy-happy-joy-joy that effectively does"sudo rm -rf /".   You are free to use it or not use it.  If I trick you into using it or I coerce you into using it then the problem is in the trick or the coercion, not the software.

we are entirely done here, bitjam.

done with you, done with this forum, and done with antix.

for the record, i think its a really good distro. im not going to stay here and take this kind of abuse from you. it is unwarranted, unproved, and the way youve treated me is neither fair nor honest. it is not just in error-- you have tried over and over and over to accuse me falsely of things without listening to any defense or correction made.

you are manufacturing truth and attacking people for simply having an opinion different than yours, and we are done now.

goodbye and good luck.


[This page is publicly archived.]

Farewell, figosdev.........now can we get back to discussions about our beloved antiX. :)

You guys are so alike. Take a step back and drink a beverage or something. No one is attacking anyone in my point of view. I know the world is stress full lately. It is why I live in the boonies. Have fun in life.

Everybody has druthers/opinions/ways of looking at things. Like breathing. Get along and live with the differences.  My wife can't stand pain. It rules her. It bugs me when she complains and decides it don't matter what it takes to stop it. But she has her good points also.

If I was physically present. I'd bring cookies and the beverage of your choice.

I don't know why every year our distro gets these kinds of discussions going on in a thread. But living wound up like a a 2 dollar watch does not seem like fun to me.

Bitjam is cool in my book. Fido is cool in my book. Everybody has qualities I admire.

After all. I have never joined a perfect Linux forum. All are stressful from time to time.

FWIW, during my reading, I wondered whether"wrote you, probably meant we" had resulted in misinterpretation (inference, in the absence of implication).

the libre kernel was obviously chosen over its being libre.

The implications are not obvious -- not to a user who reads"antiX (is systemd-free and) is da bomb for breathing life into older kit", wades through the myriad choices presented on the antiX project download page at sf.net, and chooses the smallest iso.
 

All that matters is that you are not forced to use the software.  You are free to use it or not.

then drm should be fine.

Ouch!
That stepped on one of my current pet peeves.
I'll round up some links -- EME and DRM -- and followup

edited to add:


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnuzilla.git/tree/makeicecat"
linktext was:"http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnuzil ... makeicecat"
====================================

line 211: build option"--disable-eme" is deprecated (will be ignored)


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnuzilla.git/tree/data/settings.js"
linktext was:"http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnuzil ... ettings.js"
====================================

line 155: pref("media.eme.enabled", false); line 156: pref("media.eme.apiVisible", false)

The above constitute the entire treatment of DRM by the current version (Aug2017, based on ff52.3.0esr) of IceCat (aka gnuzilla).

Mozilla skirts the issue by not shipping bundled"binary blob" CDMs
(content decryption modules, which achieve enforcement of DRM by utilizing the browser's inbuilt"encrypted media extensions" module)
Currently, firefox has only been tested to support 2 CDMs: Google-authored Widevine and Adobe-authored PrimeTime
-=-
The"enabled, by default" EME module surfaced in firefox v50.
12wks later, the ability to disable (forego building) the EME module, via"--disable-eme" build option was deprecated, in ff v52.
To the (current status quo, in stock firefox) result that:
Upon first encounter of a page within with DRM-protected content, firefox presents a"dooorhanger" notification ~~ asking user's permission to download/install the absent CDM.

My disdain regarding the stock firefox status quo is that the doorhanger does not attempt to educate the user regarding the implications. Specifically:
the decryption key created by the CDM is permanent / indelible, and provides a machine-specific fingerprint ~~ analagous to a"perma-cookie or evercookie, on steroids"

please understand / consider:

1)"Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it"

2) "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of ______"

3) In reaction to, and in protest of inbuilt EME, the Electronic Frontier Foundaton has withdrawn from the W3C consortium
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership"
linktext was:"(Sept 2017)"
====================================




Specific to the topic at hand:
by pre-configuring"media.eme.apiVisible=false", Icecat is (reprehensibly, IMO) mishandling the issue of"user (freedom of) choice, regarding EME", by suppressing display of the doorhanger notification ~~ leaving a user to wonder why the"page is broken" (intentionally broken, by design)


In the broader scope (stock firefox inbuilt EME):
Mozilla has, in LATER versions (see: ff56beta) ameliorated users' exposure to fingerprinting via EME -- by introducing a per-site permissions mechansim -- but has decided (here again, reprehensible, IMO) to not expose this permissions UI to ESR version users. The supporting code for the permission mechanism, sans UI, is already present within 52.2.0esr.

Hey, Rocky, I've come across figosdev on other forums, & I don't mean to be contentious, but s/he always seems to rock the boat.....

roky in his infinite wisdom to the rescue as always. i am on the same page as roky on this, even if we don't agree and don't see eye to eye, that doesn't mean we have to quit the forum or not talk to each other. figosdev i have read a lot or your posts and enjoyed and learned from them, i still have bookmarks from you that i need to read in depth when i have the time. i am also of the opinion that even if we argue among each other, there is something to be learned from it, we are not bots to agree on everything.

the discussion at hand is very complex and controversial and there is no end to it, because we don't control the source or the projects and even if we did, it wouldn't make a difference. the freedom of choice is an illusion to make the masses believe that they have a say on what they consume, this goes for the"open source" community as well. we are among the 1% that are pushed aside and ignored for our ideas or efforts to make a change or to stop the corporate agenda on the net. in the mean time the lusers turned the internet from the library of knowledge in to a gigantic mall and the gnu-linux community from a global movement of users working together for a free operating system to a bunch of foundations full of beggars that do everything that the corporate masters tell them to do for some spare change thrown on the ground.

fatmac wrote: Hey, Rocky, I've come across figosdev on other forums, & I don't mean to be contentious, but s/he always seems to rock the boat.....

Hell. I'm hard to take on other forums. If I don't like what one says. I got 2 choices.
Ignore.
Reply.

I am old now. So ignore is starting to rule the roost. As long as personal attacks remain off a thread. I see no harm no foul.
We run a loose ship here.
All are welcome.
If I was not a moderator. With responsibilities. I'd probably reply less.

Edit; Back on track. I tried just for grins
On my updated full install. But I guess core iso is special special < or just stretch repos >. Just a bikers guess though.