> Yes, I am sure, because most people here do not have a computer with a free
BIOS. That's why many people are interested in glug project and someone
talked about getting a lemote. Almost everyone here who runs Trisquel, runs
proprietary software, at least in the form of BIOs (even if not anything
else, which is doubtful due to the CPU arquitechture).
Could you please give me/us some data about how many people run Trisquel on
free BIOSes, as opposed to those running it on a closed flavor?
You see, most laptops won't run Trisquel precisely because of those
limitations. So maybe the people running it do get the time to go one step
further.
> What I said is true: when you use Trisquel or GNewSense, you have someone
else imposing their power over you, by not giving you the choice of running a
free software distro BUT updating a proprietary software that is ALREADY in
your system to begin with.
Than you don't understand what freedom is about. Or the works of GNU/Linux.
Or both.
> And yes, Debian explained the update the best they could. Just read the
link kopolee provided.
Does it flash a red and blue window saying what the user is about to do? Or
just some previous action binds the user the same as clicking I agree on a
Microsoft licence?
> I see you (like many others here) have problems dealing with the fact that
Trisquel developers may not always make the best decisions, that sometimes in
order to be "FSF endorsed" they actually sacrifice freedom of the users. It's
a trade off that I don't have to feel imposed on me. And I am not pormoting
Debian, I am sayind that in that regard, Debian is better prepared than
Trisquel, and Trisquel should make some changes. that is a totally acceptable
thing to say and consider.
As long as Trisquel keeps to the FSF philosophy, than they are taking THE
BEST decisions.
And don't forget, Trisquel exists only because Debian failed to take the good
decisions in this direction.
