On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:56:25 PM UTC, cooloutac wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 11:34:32 AM UTC-4, yura...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, cooloutac wrote: > > > I'll be disappointed but I'm not going to be mad at them for trying to > > > get paid, they deserve it. > > > > > > But I also wouldn't mind if they turned me into a money asset like > > > windows so they can keep designing it for home users...lol > > > > > > I look at things differently. You are referring to linux architecture > > > and developers, while I'm referring to the majority of its users and > > > community members, as the Product. > > > > Alright, I respect that, we see some things differently. But the discussion > > is good, it does not have to come down to agreeing in the end. > > > > I don't like customers being turned into assets though. The way I see it, > > it essentially make people "not people" anymore, customer service is out of > > the window, it's all about cheating and manipulating people into making the > > best use of them, rather than making a fair trade between a company and a > > customer. So I kind of black out when I see business models that turn > > people into assets, I really, really don't like that approach. > > > > But I do really agree that I wouldn't mind Qubes taking a fee, ask for more > > donations, or focus partly or entirely on business users. They do a lot of > > hard work, and regardless of the target group, the change will be for the > > better of humanity. Perhaps it's asking too much for Qubes to focus on both > > companies and end-users at the same time, nontheless, I do hope they can > > manage to do that. > > > > It's obvious they had their hands full on Qubes 4 too, so it might just be > > that and we're reading too much into the issue here at hand. But lets see, > > with time comes answers. I just hope it wiill be in good time rather the > > long wait. > > You are going to be someones asset or product as part of nature, whether you > know it or not. > > The ends justify the means to me. Especially if it means being able to use > Qubes or not. > > I also think its silly to not support secure boot, simply because the idea > was created by Microsoft. FSF/Richard Stallman supporters who are against > secure boot, is like Bernie supporters not voting for hillary. Seems more > spiteful then practical.
Well yeah, only if one allows oneself to become a victim. We can oppose and create balance in the world. Also secure boot is entirely pointless in a stateless computer. A non-stateless computer has a lot of closed source firmware which can be either buggy (which closed software have proven to almost always be), and backdoored, which is either illegal, can be abused by other than for the intended, and is at the fringe limit crossing into the realm of human rights. We don't need closed source firmware, it only creates problems, and no benifit or solutions, other than maintaining market shares through force, rather than surviving on good customer service and customer support. We don't need companies that leech on society. I gather you think the world is ruled by bullies, and that you think it's okay. If so, using that perspective, we just have to become the bullies towards to big companies who wants to make use of us. By the end of the day, we the people are what matter, humanity matter, not some greedy individuals behind a large company. Having said that, I'm not a fanatic against big companies, but they must behave, or I'll be against them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/e7902f9b-e1a4-48f9-9b61-925809c0c20d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.