How close does the Pyra's design come to respecting your freedom?

[diligentcircle]

There is certainly nothing wrong with a Pyra-PNDManager that shows the user non-Free applications if the users wants to see that. Just like a Free web browser can show the contents of the page www.microsoft.com without censoring it

If you host a non-free repository, like Debian does, and tell the users "if you want non-free software, you can use this repository", you're effectively recommending that proprietary software, or at least offering to do so. You can disagree with the FSF on this, but the FSF's position is that this is not acceptable, and not doing this is a requirement of RYF.


On the other hand, consider RPM Fusion. This would is perfectly acceptable, because a user has to actively point to the location where the RPM Fusion repository is. This is incidentally also more analogous to microsoft.com; you get there by knowing the URL and typing it, your browser doesn't suggest it to you. Suggestions on a Web browser would be the default bookmarks.


So, to be clear, the only way a Pandora successor could ever get RYF certification is if all repositories pointed to by the device's seller and the default OS on the device included only libre software. Anything like repo.openpandora.org would have to be installed by a user who knows where it is from a third party, like RPM Fusion.

 

[Exophase]

If you host a non-free repository, like Debian does, and tell the users "if you want non-free software, you can use this repository", you're effectively recommending that proprietary software, or at least offering to do so. You can disagree with the FSF on this, but the FSF's position is that this is not acceptable, and not doing this is a requirement of RYF.

This would have saved a lot of time with that argument back then.

 

[notaz]

The Pyra will be worse than pandora in regards of blob count, because in addition to all that pandora has, it will likely need an extra one for audio (ABE AE, audio engine). It's possible to bypass the AE, but that produces artifacts.

 

[EvilDragon]

It's annoying... the more recent the technology, the more closed sourced stuff appears.

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

There is certainly nothing wrong with a Pyra-PNDManager that shows the user non-Free applications if the users wants to see that. Just like a Free web browser can show the contents of the page www.microsoft.com without censoring it

If you host a non-free repository, like Debian does, and tell the users "if you want non-free software, you can use this repository", you're effectively recommending that proprietary software, or at least offering to do so. You can disagree with the FSF on this, but the FSF's position is that this is not acceptable, and not doing this is a requirement of RYF.


On the other hand, consider RPM Fusion. This would is perfectly acceptable, because a user has to actively point to the location where the RPM Fusion repository is. This is incidentally also more analogous to microsoft.com; you get there by knowing the URL and typing it, your browser doesn't suggest it to you. Suggestions on a Web browser would be the default bookmarks.


So, to be clear, the only way a Pandora successor could ever get RYF certification is if all repositories pointed to by the device's seller and the default OS on the device included only libre software. Anything like repo.openpandora.org would have to be installed by a user who knows where it is from a third party, like RPM Fusion.

Whoa!  So much restrictions to be "free".  

 

[diligentcircle]

It's annoying... the more recent the technology, the more closed sourced stuff appears.

When people aren't insisting on hardware that works with libre software, and mainline Linux just ships with these proprietary blobs by default because Torvalds isn't willing to temporarily sacrifice some hardware compatibility to make a long-term change, it's an outcome that's to be expected.


RMS has been predicting for a couple of years now that we're going to need to eventually build our own hardware to run libre software. It's grim, but it does seem likely. In the meantime, the best we can do is reverse-engineer whatever we can, and assemble our computers from the best parts we have available. We could also really use more companies like Think Penguin and Gluglug.

 

[Caine]

Whoa!  So much restrictions to be "free".  

There are many different interpretations of the word Freedom.
In general being free is a lot harder than to "enslave" (a bit too heavy of a term, but you get the gist) yourself and let others determine what you can and can not do. Freedom takes a lot of effort, e.g. in this context you might have to implement drivers and perhaps even make your own hardware to break out of restrictions placed on hardware and software by most vendors.

As long as the vendors restrictions do not bother you, it seems like the Free (as in libre) road is restricting, but once your requirements deviate from the masses, the restrictions of closed source become painfully obvious.

To me freedom is absence of compulsion. I prefer this definition over "the ability to do whatever I want", because it restricts my actions as well, i.e. it forces me to respect the freedom of others (which makes it more symmetric).

 

[WizardStan]

Whoa!  So much restrictions to be "free".  

Only on the vendor. The RYF certification is meant for the end user. If something qualifies for RYF that means the user can use it 100% as advertised without needing any restrictive software.It seems counter intuitive that "freedom" would have so many restrictions, but those are restrictions on the vendor to ensure the user is free. Because true freedom doesn't exist, there are fundamental overlaps where granting one person a freedome will necessarily restrict the freedom of another. This is one such case.

 

[fusion_power]

It's annoying... the more recent the technology, the more closed sourced stuff appears.

For me as "end user" it only counts what works best at the end. So if a closed source solution is available that performs better than an open source solution, take the proprietary one!  

 

[directive0]

*please disregard this post. The thread title was truncated on mobile and I got the wrong idea about the purpose of this discussion. Sorry!


All the Pyra has to do to be a home run for me is


A) improve the hinge Over the pandora


B) improve the nubs


C) play embedded html5 video


D) play minecraft at 30fps


That's it. The pandora is a near perfect device for me right now, but those minor quibbles are all that I find annoying or limiting.

 

[rygD]

There is certainly nothing wrong with a Pyra-PNDManager that shows the user non-Free applications if the users wants to see that. Just like a Free web browser can show the contents of the page www.microsoft.com without censoring it

If you host a non-free repository, like Debian does, and tell the users "if you want non-free software, you can use this repository", you're effectively recommending that proprietary software, or at least offering to do so. You can disagree with the FSF on this, but the FSF's position is that this is not acceptable, and not doing this is a requirement of RYF.


On the other hand, consider RPM Fusion. This would is perfectly acceptable, because a user has to actively point to the location where the RPM Fusion repository is. This is incidentally also more analogous to microsoft.com; you get there by knowing the URL and typing it, your browser doesn't suggest it to you. Suggestions on a Web browser would be the default bookmarks.


So, to be clear, the only way a Pandora successor could ever get RYF certification is if all repositories pointed to by the device's seller and the default OS on the device included only libre software. Anything like repo.openpandora.org would have to be installed by a user who knows where it is from a third party, like RPM Fusion.

What about a nonfree repo that is not listed in the default software, maybe something like evilrepo.openpandora.org, and the user can add as a source to the Pyra version of PNDManager?  I don't see how limiting the information someone has by not telling the user that something they may want to use is available is supporting their freedom.  Isn't frredom be about educating users and supporting them in making their choices?  This whole mess sounds like the opposite of what I thought the FSF was about, but it seems their primary focus now is only about ensuring people only use what they say is ok.  The open source crowd is probably more well known because they actually try to help users, not just because free is a confusing word.  Others have posted about the restrictions being placed only on OEMs and such, but something still smells a bit off to me.

I still prefer free software, but often I don't have a choice if I wan't to achieve my goals and not lose money along the way.  I have many times expressed my problem with using proprietary software in my college classes, and the response is always that I can use what I want, but the assignments must meet the standard, and if things aren't right I will lose points.  Since many classes are either about using Microsoft products, or rely heavily on what they offer, not to mention other proprietary stuff, I would be unable to pass classes without using them.  I don't want to, and I usually already know how to do most, if not all, of what is covered in these classes due to use in a work environment, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.  Unless a lot of money falls in my lap my options are extremely limited, with the main 3 being get a career in a different field, stay where I am and hope I can make enough money to pay bills, or go against what I feel is right.  I have chosen the last option since I am trying to progress in my career, and employers will probably not give me much choice in what I use, and in the past the distinction I made was that I will be more picky about what I have installed and running on my personal stuff, but do whatever is asked of me at work, to a point.  It still makes it difficult to complete assignments without Windows...

It's annoying... the more recent the technology, the more closed sourced stuff appears.

I think things might get better soon.  The problem is the unflexibility of some of those who are pushing for alternatives.  Open source is not the only goal, but it seems to be the best option right now.

It's annoying... the more recent the technology, the more closed sourced stuff appears.

When people aren't insisting on hardware that works with libre software, and mainline Linux just ships with these proprietary blobs by default because Torvalds isn't willing to temporarily sacrifice some hardware compatibility to make a long-term change, it's an outcome that's to be expected.


RMS has been predicting for a couple of years now that we're going to need to eventually build our own hardware to run libre software. It's grim, but it does seem likely. In the meantime, the best we can do is reverse-engineer whatever we can, and assemble our computers from the best parts we have available. We could also really use more companies like Think Penguin and Gluglug.

I think there are other options but I don't think Stallman and the FSF would support these ideas, not because they violate freedom, but because they are illegal.  It reminds me of other disobedient outlaws of the past that were trying to ensure people had freedom.

It's annoying... the more recent the technology, the more closed sourced stuff appears.

For me as "end user" it only counts what works best at the end. So if a closed source solution is available that performs better than an open source solution, take the proprietary one!  

Unfortunately, this is how I am too.  Consider how many games can't be played if you aren't on a console or Windows.  Now look at how many you have left if you stick with only free/libre titles.  I wonder if the Pandora and Pyra would be able to play many games if only free software was used.

 

[_wb_]

It's annoying... the more recent the technology, the more closed sourced stuff appears.

For me as "end user" it only counts what works best at the end. So if a closed source solution is available that performs better than an open source solution, take the proprietary one!  

Unfortunately, this is how I am too.  Consider how many games can't be played if you aren't on a console or Windows.  Now look at how many you have left if you stick with only free/libre titles.  I wonder if the Pandora and Pyra would be able to play many games if only free software was used.

Traditionally, gaming didn't get a lot of attention from the FOSS community because games are considered non-essential: if you're trying to create a completely Free and Open Source environment, then it makes sense to give priority to the "more important" things, like compilers, standard libraries, shells, etc.

Also games tend to be a combination of code and art, and to some extent, the principles of FOSS apply more to code than to art (although the popularity of CreativeCommons shows that the difference is not that huge). Code is like a recipe you may want to modify (or just convert the units or change the quantities), art is a medium for individual expression. But of course the distinction is not perfect, partly because, in many ways, code is data is code.

 

[rygD]

Sorry, I thought this was a thread about the Pyra, a pocket sized gaming computer.

 

[diligentcircle]

What about a nonfree repo that is not listed in the default software, maybe something like evilrepo.openpandora.org, and the user can add as a source to the Pyra version of PNDManager?

That would be fine as long as there is nothing that could be construed as suggesting evilrepo.openpandora.org or assisting usage of it from the main system's distribution channels or website. So basically, no mention of it on these places.

I don't see how limiting the information someone has by not telling the user that something they may want to use is available is supporting their freedom. Isn't frredom be about educating users and supporting them in making their choices?

It's all explained here:

https://gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html


In a nutshell, they don't want to recommend a system that includes optional proprietary software, because the recommendation could easily be taken to include an endorsement of that proprietary software. The FSF isn't saying that optionally libre distros are bad, just that they're bad to recommend to the general public.

I have many times expressed my problem with using proprietary software in my college classes, and the response is always that I can use what I want, but the assignments must meet the standard, and if things aren't right I will lose points. Since many classes are either about using Microsoft products, or rely heavily on what they offer, not to mention other proprietary stuff, I would be unable to pass classes without using them. I don't want to, and I usually already know how to do most, if not all, of what is covered in these classes due to use in a work environment, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do. Unless a lot of money falls in my lap my options are extremely limited, with the main 3 being get a career in a different field, stay where I am and hope I can make enough money to pay bills, or go against what I feel is right. I have chosen the last option since I am trying to progress in my career, and employers will probably not give me much choice in what I use, and in the past the distinction I made was that I will be more picky about what I have installed and running on my personal stuff, but do whatever is asked of me at work, to a point. It still makes it difficult to complete assignments without Windows...

For the record, if you go to a place like the Trisquel community, you'll find that a lot of people who value their freedom are in a position like this. It's an imperfect world, after all. As long as you're not doing something bad like developing proprietary software, no one from the libre software community is going to criticize you.

I wonder if the Pandora and Pyra would be able to play many games if only free software was used.

It would be limited to games that can be rendered in software, so no 3-D other than ones like Doom. You'd be surprised by the number of games that meet this requirement, though. Heck, two of my favorite games, The Ur-Quan Masters and King's Quest VI (through ScummVM), do.

 

[TrashyMG]

It would be limited to games that can be rendered in software, so no 3-D other than ones like Doom. You'd be surprised by the number of games that meet this requirement, though. Heck, two of my favorite games, The Ur-Quan Masters and King's Quest VI (through ScummVM), do.

Well Debian Jessie does have Mesa for Software GL rendering and while gaming on it may not be that stellar, it does open up some simpler games and applications that wouldn't work otherwise. So far I've been running my OMAP5 devboard without the SGX driver, well mostly because of the lack of a proper driver ironically.  

 

[bzar]

Isn't stuff in PNDManager or even the repo kind of "secondhand proprietary endorsement"? AFAIK neither of these is explicitly the work of the people behind the pandora. They're works of the community. ED may recommend, say, PNDManager, but PNDManager itself is (as far as dflemstr's original CC license for panorama permits) free. Now, if a recommended software "recommends" proprietary software, does that still count? Does the FSF gag order concern the community at large, or what we talk about here? For example, if pyra didn't ship with a package manager, but it would be common knowledge some specific package manager is the first thing you should install, and that package manager uses a repo that does not discriminate based on freedom, is that still a violation?

 

[WizardStan]

King's Quest VI (through ScummVM)

How is KQ6 considered in any way to be free? It's only by reverse engineering the proprietary scripting language that it's possible to play it today. ScummVM may be free but in order to play the games it needs closed source binaries, the scripts and data files.

 

[diligentcircle]

Now, if a recommended software "recommends" proprietary software, does that still count?

Yes. That's why Mozilla's add-ons database is a problem.

How is KQ6 considered in any way to be free? It's only by reverse engineering the proprietary scripting language that it's possible to play it today. ScummVM may be free but in order to play the games it needs closed source binaries, the scripts and data files.

ScummVM doesn't need the binaries, just the data files. As for the scripts, that's a good point, but it depends on what kinds of things are in those scripts. For example, I've looked at Ren'Py's scripts, and those aren't a problem. Do you happen to know what SCI scripts are like?


As for the part about ScummVM being a product of reverse-engineering, I don't think it matters. Nouveau is a product of reverse-engineering, but it would be silly to reject that.

 

[Binky]

It seems to me that banning convient access to not-completely-100%-freer-than-free-software fails to respect my freedom to run non-free software.

Suppose the Pyra ships with DBPManager, configured to use repo.openpandora.org

If I want free software, I can start DBPM, search and hit the big download button.

If I want non-RMS-approved software, I first need to muddle around the forums, then poke config files, eventually adding "evilrepo.openpandora.org" to DBPManager's repo list.

As much as I dislike having non-free-blobs forced on me by big corporations, I also resent  having the FSF's set of ideals shoved in my face.

 

[FaeMinx]

^ hear hear!