@snacks WWRD? What would Richard do?
@derek why would you do that?
The blog post doesn't even say that Mozilla doesn't even say they "no longer support a free internet". This is just a blatant misrepresentation of the blog post because Derek didn't read it (which ultimately lead to 35,000 thousand people being misinformed).
The only objectionable goal I found in the blog post was the third one. Other than that, every other goal is in line with free software.
That being said, Librewolf is a great browser for privacy out of the box.
Boycotting Mozilla over something they didn't do is literally going to harm the free software movement a lot for no reason.
Seriously, I feel that free software advocates have no pragmatism whatsoever in their beliefs. The worst example of the is Richard Stallman, who will only support operating systems that ban all proprietary software from their package managers.
All that means is that no one will use these operating systems, not that user freedom will increase.
@brittlebrowse123 actually we at GNU only support software libre that respects users. For example, Ubuntu is free software at its core but it allows programs that violate user freedom so as much as we aplreciate it, we don't promote it because it violates GNU FSDG.
"We're not a cult."
I never said you are. I just said there is a serious lack of pragmatism in the movement. This is leading to its failure.
"The quality of dealing with a problem in a sensible way that suits the conditions that really exist, rather than following fixed theories, ideas, or rules."
Moxie Marlinspike was one of the first people to make a very successful piece of free software (it hit the news as well).
One of the reasons it is so successful is due to Moxie's pragmatism. He is willing to make sacrifices to privacy if it pragmatically means more people will use the software (such as relying more on a phone number, which makes Signal very convenient).
Obviously, many free software advocates don't like him because he doesn't support a purist ideology.
@brittlebrowse123 while Signal is published under a free license, the Signal apps are dependent on proprietary programs and libraries which makes the apps nonfree. So please don't refer to Signal as free as in freedom.
As I said, what we do is only promoting software freedom. So you either respect user fully and give the user freedom, or you don't. There's no way in the middle. A great example of a secure messenger is Matrix.
This is exactly what I mean when I say the free software movement has absolutely no pragmatism what so ever.
Signal apps are not dependant on proprietary code. It uses its own notification system when you don't have google play services installed, and can be downloaded as an APK from their site.
However, Moxie, being pragmatic, realised that play services and & phone number would make the app significantly easier to use and more convenient.
Guess what was the result? Signal exploded recently, and it has been extremely easy for many people to switch from Whatsapp to signal because it works so similarly.
The phone number feature means you can immediately connect with anyone in your contacts as long as you use signal (you do not have to ask them for their username).
This made it easier for entire groups of people to switch over (as they are all in each other's contacts).
Centralisation made the software extremely easy to use (and to add features to).
Reliance on proprietary social medias such as twitter allowed Signal devs to spread the word easily.
Play services meant reliable notifications with little loss in battery life.
All in all, all these pragmatic sacrifices actually lead to signal being far, far more popular than all these purist alternatives.
And it goes much farther than that. Nobody would use linux if it was 100% purist free software. (Like trisquel).
Thankfully, some people, who have some sense, realised that by putting proprietary apps in app stores and having some proprietary code, the operating system would actually be useable!!?!
Due to that, distros such as Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Manjaro are actually used. Because they do not follow free software extremism.
Literally look at history. What movement has ever succeeded immediately in one go and not gradually?
Lets take racism in the US for an example.
Slavery was "abloshed" in the 1800s, yet the 13th amendment led to slavery via mass incarcaration.
Civil rights didn't get rid of racism, it just made the situation slightly better.
It's been decades since the civil rights era, and racism still exists.
No movement in history has succeeded in one go.
Free software is no different. If it wants to succeed, you have to drop the free software extremism and support pragmatic approaches.
For example, on the GNU website the first OS that are promoted are trisquel and whatever other garbage distros that follow free software extremism.
Trying to push immediately for 100% free software won't work.
You have to make sacrifices when developing software like with Signal, and you have to nudge people in the right direction slowly.
Signal's explosion has been a huge step in computer liberty!!! Now instead of using whatsapp to communicate, people are using Signal, which gives them privacy.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you, but an "all or nothing" unpragmatic approach will literally never work.
You cannot get people to immediately use trisquel with 100% free software.
You can, however, push people to use free application slowly, and educate them about free software.
@brittlebrowse123 nope. You're wrong. It communicates with a proprietary library. There's no such thing as partially libre. It's not libre and doesn't matter if you like it or not. We don't say it's not secure or you shouldn't use it. You and them can call it everything they want but it's not libre buddy. Sorry we hurt your feelings.
@arh Most people will need DRM. No reason not to show people how to enable it if they so choose. In the end, everyone makes their own choices.
@derek yeah but why not simply use Firefox then?
@derek some enable DRM on librewolf others disable it in firefox. I'm pretty confident my firefox is more librewolf with all those tweeks from privacytools website ;D
Hi Derek, thanks for this. I was looking for that fix.
@derek I was playing around with LW initially back soon after your 1st video about it and realized the DRM settings that wouldn't let Netflix or others play video, also won't let YouTube play their ads, just as if you're a Premium member. I used to be one because it's so nice not having to deal with them (the ads) but dropped it because I have enough paid subs as it is. Now I don't have to anymore. Oops! Wonder how long before YT realizes this and makes all content DRM? I'll enjoy it 'til then.
A mastodon instance created by Derek Taylor, creator of the DistroTube channels on YouTube and LBRY. Derek is an advocate for free and open source software.