Re: Mobile phone details: Sailfish

[Bernhard E. Reiter]

Am Donnerstag 16 Mai 2019 13:38:20 schrieb Joe Awni:
> Would love to hear more details about the early-days. What
> Free Software projects where you following in 1989?

My main computer these days were an Amiga 500
and the main source of Free Software the Fred Fish disks.
There were Matt Dillons editor DME and various small
tools, hack, a vi clone (which I did't like), terminal software and so on. I 
don't remember precisely in which year gnuplot was included first, but it was 
on there as well. (gnuplot is not related to GNU, but Free Software.)

Matt later wrote his own compiler DICE. My understanding of Free Software 
concepts was not very explicit, this changed in the early nineties.

Cheers,
Bernhard


-- 
FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: 
blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Fairphone lessons

[Paul Boddie]

On Friday 17. May 2019 12.19.36 Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote:
> 
> While I think that warranties for electronics could and should be longer, I
> think the comparison to household appliances is unfair.
> 
> Mobile phones may undergo less physical stress than washing mashines in
> absolute terms, but operate withing much tighter tolerances. In other words,
> there are plenty of places on my washing machine where hitting it with a
> hammer would do minimal damage. The same is not true for a mobile phone,
> and simply cannot be true due to physical constraints...

It is true that washing machines can be overengineered by a greater margin and 
not change the nature of the product. However, they are still susceptible to 
failure through improper use, lack of maintenance and care, and so on. One 
might also argue that the economics do not favour their repair, either, and 
that many people would simply replace a failing appliance than spend 
comparable amounts on repairing it.

However, what led to the dispute about warranties was the continual refusal of 
manufacturers (particularly Nokia if I recall correctly) to honour warranties 
because of moisture damage supposedly due to improper use. This raises genuine 
questions about what conditions such products should be reasonably be operated 
under, alongside issues of appropriate design and manufacturer responsibility.

I don't think it is unreasonable for people to expect their phones to last at 
least five years. The argument that phones get better all the time and that 
people "need" to upgrade constantly is even weaker now than it was, partly 
because (like with other products) the customer discovers that what they have 
already is "good enough", that upgrading delivers fewer new benefits than the 
last upgrade did, and partly because the upgrade treadmill was shamefully 
exploited with personal computers and that this is just another outing for it.

Paul
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Fairphone lessons

[Johannes Zarl-Zierl]

Am Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2019, 14:29:28 CEST schrieb Paul Boddie:
> On Wednesday 15. May 2019 12.51.36 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote:
> > Am Dienstag 14 Mai 2019 13:24:28 schrieb Paul Boddie:
> > > These are presumably the same apologists for phone manufacturers trying
> > > to
> > > cut warranty terms where I live: people who openly said that they bought
> > > a
> > > new phone every six months, that longer warranties would make phones
> > > more
> > > expensive, and that nobody needed them anyway (presumably because at six
> > > months, they would sell their phone to some hapless buyer or fake up
> > > some
> > > kind of insurance claim).
> 
> Just to give some more context here, the argument went that phones should
> have a substantially shorter warranty than household appliances like
> washing machines (which I think was, maybe still is, five years) despite
> being more expensive in many cases. One can argue that washing machines and
> other appliances undergo substantially more physical stress than phones,
> which was usually the reason for failure and warranty claims.

While I think that warranties for electronics could and should be longer, I 
think the comparison to household appliances is unfair.

Mobile phones may undergo less physical stress than washing mashines in 
absolute terms, but operate withing much tighter tolerances. In other words, 
there are plenty of places on my washing machine where hitting it with a 
hammer would do minimal damage. The same is not true for a mobile phone, and 
simply cannot be true due to physical constraints...

Cheers,
  Johannes


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: GitHub, proprietary services and Save Code Share

[Mirko Boehm]

Hello,

> On 9. May 2019, at 12:40, Reinhard Müller  wrote:
> 
> Am 09.05.19 um 11:54 schrieb Mirko Boehm:
>> OFE is a great ally to FSFE, and has a mission that is strongly related
>> to ours. It is however not a software freedom focused organisation. It
>> is good to work together. It is not a promising approach to rely on OFE
>> to have software freedom represented in Brussels for us.
> 
> So it makes sense to work together with organisations like OFE, but we
> need to make sure that their goals in a specific field of cooperation
> match our goals, even if it is for different reasons. Right?

Right. On top of that, I suggest that when it comes to software freedom, we 
remain the key driver. Even if the missions of other organisations match well 
with ours, their priorities may be different. We should assume that software 
freedom is our top priority and *a* priority for them.

Best,

Mirko.
-- 
Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Free Software in Munich - FSFE thanks cabaret artist Christine Prayon

[Stephane Ascoet]

Le 15/05/2019 à 13:48, Besnik Bleta a écrit :

was FSFE chosen because of its fight or the lack thereof? Either
way, FSFE should refuse taking that money. It's money coming from the
50 + 37 = 87 million deal of City of Munich against Free Software.


Hi, the last point isn't a problem for me, but the first is a good 
concern. I think that if FSFE doesn't know how to use this huge amount 
of money, it could consider ask her to give it to another similar 
organisation. For example, I think that the most urgent fight by now is 



If this law become reality, Europe will be China and all fights of any 
organisation in every domain going in another way than the "world 
company" way would be threaten by censorship.


--
Cordialement, Stephane Ascoet

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: Fairphone lessons

[Paul Boddie]

On Wednesday 15. May 2019 12.51.36 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote:
> 
> Am Dienstag 14 Mai 2019 13:24:28 schrieb Paul Boddie:
> >
> > These are presumably the same apologists for phone manufacturers trying to
> > cut warranty terms where I live: people who openly said that they bought a
> > new phone every six months, that longer warranties would make phones more
> > expensive, and that nobody needed them anyway (presumably because at six
> > months, they would sell their phone to some hapless buyer or fake up some
> > kind of insurance claim).

Just to give some more context here, the argument went that phones should have 
a substantially shorter warranty than household appliances like washing 
machines (which I think was, maybe still is, five years) despite being more 
expensive in many cases. One can argue that washing machines and other 
appliances undergo substantially more physical stress than phones, which was 
usually the reason for failure and warranty claims.

> > The problem is that we have to share a planet with idiots like this,
> 
> There are many reasons why using Free Software with phone hardware last
> lasts longer is an advantage. I believe that some of those people can be
> convinced or persuaded to buy more Free Software and open hardware based
> products. However calling or thinking about them as "idiots" won't help
> with this. I can understand if this comes out of frustration, though.

Of course it comes out of frustration because we literally have to share a 
planet with this kind of behaviour. If such behaviour isn't idiocy then what 
is it? Selfish, destructive, wasteful, anti-social?

What happens to all the stuff that isn't sold? Does it make its way back for 
re-manufacturing or does it wander off into secondary markets where people 
might get a chance to buy it for less (because people in those markets are 
poorer)?

What if the units aren't sold then? Are they dismantled or recycled there or 
elsewhere? What environmental protections are there for the people doing such 
work? Does everything end up in landfill?

People who don't have time to think about such issues may not be "idiots", 
although one has to wonder what they do think about if they are buying a new 
phone every six months. But I think it is fair comment to call people doing so 
*and* actively lobbying against more responsible behaviour "idiots".

They perpetuate a system in which things are produced at incredible cost 
(beyond the price tag) for someone to be distracted with for a short while, if 
they even get into a customer's hands. And the cost of recovering the needless 
waste from this exercise is largely pushed onto others to bear, just so that 
the producers can ready yet another set of single-season products to shower 
the market with.

[...]

> > with their behaviour validating the destructive and wasteful actions of
> > corporations who are not being held responsible for the consequences of
> > their "need" to make money.
> 
> Note that this is a common missunderstanding: Organisations (like companies
> and even charities) have to be economically viable to be able to persist and
> fullfil their "tasks". Just "making money" (or a profit) is **not the
> purpose** of most organisations in the narrower sense. Income maybe a
> necessity, though. Owners, customers, employees and other stakeholders all
> have an influence on how a company acts.

In various cases, companies use the existence of the other groups as an excuse 
for their own behaviour. They claim that shareholders demand the maximum 
returns or that customers demand the cheapest possible products. It is true 
that some shareholders and customers, particularly the former, do not care 
about anything other than their own interests. But it can be very convenient 
to point the finger at others in order to justify "business as usual".

Again, I think it is refreshing that organisations like Fairphone act in ways 
to promote more responsible production of phones, largely by prioritising 
instead of neglecting genuine concerns around the entire product lifecycle. 
And Fairphone may be a lot better than other vendors in this regard.

But given that I know relatively little about the other lifecycle issues but a 
bit more about Free Software and software maintenance issues, why should I not 
highlight areas of concern about decisions made by Fairphone? I may feel bad 
doing so (and be made to feel bad about it, too), but what if Fairphone had 
put Windows Mobile on their products instead?

Some people might then have regarded the "fair" aspects of their products as 
mere box-ticking elements in an otherwise undesirable package. And there are 
people who are annoyed at Fairphone for providing a product that runs Google 
products and accesses Google services, arguably being built for surveillance. 
What should we say to them? That their concerns are not valid or are unfair to 
the company?

I think that encouragement or advocacy is just not enough: it has to be