>>54
The only non-free software I feel pressured to use is my university's CMS, and email beyond this I'd like to see more free hardware, at a reasonable price point, even if with relatively low performance. In reality most of what I would like to see in computing is now orthogonal to the FSF goals, perhaps with the exception of having software and hardware that fits-in-head, and is secure.
As an example it's great that the Mozilla Corporation releases the source to Firefox, but what use is it if it's too large to be understood by one person in a reasonable timeframe, allows users to be easily fingerprinted by websites, leaks information about their users, has a couple thousand CVEs, and can't be built on a machine with a reasonable amount of memory (iirc requires 8GB of ram or something similar)?
To me it seems like the FSF has won, according to their initial mission, but the end result has been unacceptable for other reasons. The free-software is neccessary but not sufficient for users to be in control of their machine. We need to go beyond the FSF if we are to acheive this goal.
In reality most of what I would like to see in computing is now orthogonal to the FSF goals, perhaps with the exception of having software and hardware that fits-in-head, and is secure.
The free-software is neccessary but not sufficient for users to be in control of their machine. We need to go beyond the FSF if we are to acheive this goal.
I completely agree. I want to name a subset of Free Software which fits my goals. I believe more people should be able to write their software alone. If the standards stay simple, and more servers and other things run custom software, this is better, and makes widescale attacks less feasible.
The issue with Firefox is a symptom of the issues with the WWW in general, which are the result of corporations vying for control by purposefully making things large and incomprehensible.
>>77
glad someone agrees, and I agree with your additions.