As I said, I was only using 'purity' for lack of a better term... One of the issues that I see is that there isn't always a Free (as in source code, might or might not be free as in beer) solution, or one that doesn't involve significant sacrifices...
As one example we know there is a lot of PC hardware that either only works w/ binary blobs, or where the Free drivers don't work as well as the non-free ones... Or hardware like the RasPi that is nominally open, but needs blobs for some of it's functions. In other cases there is NO non-free alternative... The programming software for my power chair (which is bootleg / pirated BTW) only runs on a Windows box, and is closed source.... I have to choose between non-free software, or being stuck w/ the crappy OEM settings... (Which is why I have a few air-gapped Windows boxes, and GNU/Linux boxes that run Zoom, MS Teams, and so forth...) As such, coming at folks w/ an attitude of 'proprietary is evil and only Free solutions are acceptable' is not going to win friends... We need to be willing to say that partially free / open is better than totally locked down, even if it needs proprietary tools... ART ------------------ Arthur Torrey - <[email protected]> ------------------- ---MUCH TRIMMED--------- > On 11/13/2021 11:18 PM [email protected] wrote: > > > On 2021-11-14 10:03, Arthur Torrey wrote: > > I think the only thing that might be an issue where the groups might > > need to have a significant level of willingness to compromise is on > > the 'purity requirements' (for lack of a better term) I.e. both the > > OSHW and R2R folks don't necessarily have big issues w/ using > > proprietary software / binary blobs if it makes it possible to > > accomplish their ends of making cool objects (i.e. a gizmo that is > > based on a RasPI) or fixing a device (i.e using a Windows based > > proprietary programming tool)... So while pointing out how Free > > software might make it easier to make / fix things, the FLOSS > > enthusiasts would need to not be hostile to the idea using software > > that we don't approve of... This is sort of like my comment that the > > RYF cert would be more popular / desirable if it didn't prohibit > > mentioning compatibility w/ other non-free O/S's... > > Personally, the issue isn't with 'purity', it's with 'compromise'. > Purity doesn't exclude variety, and it certainly doesn't indicate > group-think, to my mind. I don't even phrase the concept of only using > Free software as one of being 'pure'--when there are many options and > solutions that are already 'Free', why can't you always choose the right > choice? _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
