> newsbeuter
Yes, I have started using it yesterday too. Looks nice. Thanks for sharing
your experience.
> agree that Firefox does not adequately respect privacy, but it is free
software
I see a big danger in this. It implies that free software can be malicious to
the user and still be called free software. So the very term looses its
meaning because normally free is a associated with ethical, so that is the
expectation. Would you agree? Of course I am not implying that it should be
100% bug free but I object to the fact that it is intentionally made
non-private. That's why I mention freedom 0 in the comments.
The other question is - how come an average nobody, not even a network
expert, could make such a simple test (which seems essential and fairly easy
to my mind) and professional top programmers or sysadmins never did that, yet
they stick to software which they accept as given to be safe? That is what
really worries me. I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone but looking at
facts, logically and sanely, without any bias - we have great talks about
software freedom, ethics, non-maliciousness, non-spying, endorsements listed
as 100% free/libre/RYF etc. - words creating the impression of absolute
cleanness in which the user can be completely safe, like a baby in the hands
of a good loving mother. But at the same time - it is not quite the case. Why
are these endorsements created if nobody really seems to have checked
elementary things? How can a free/libre thing be "respecting your freedom" if
it contains a product which connects to Amazon, Akamai etc. on first run,
without even asking you or without even telling you that it will do that? I
have read some threads with lots of criticism about Purism, about how they
carefully structure the language to create the impression of cleanness,
security and safety. But how is this different? It is either clean or not
clean. We cannot mix clean water and dirty water and advertise that it is
clean water. Otherwise the words free and ethical are already polluted and we
need new words, which in turn will get polluted too etc. I wonder if I am
making myself clear :)
So I am not questioning the technical expertise of anyone but the depth of
attention given to things and how it is shared. Through the words used and
through the mockery at proprietary stuff the sharing creates the impression
of absolutism, as in inspected thoroughly down to the semiconductor by super
experts. At the same time we see such superficial issues and the company
"respecting user privacy" would rather send me to talk to another one who
doesn't care. It is not that I don't understand what they are doing - I
simply won't play their game. I have uninstalled Firefox, to me it is that
simple. When one sees a venomous snake one doesn't argue with it - one stays
away from it, doesn't one?
