firefox, iceweasel, burningdog, icecat, ...

[Yavor Doganov]

Sam Liddicott wrote:
> 
> > I understand your point, and here we disagree: there is no reason
> > for a user or developer or $insert_role_here to make such dillemas
> > today.
> >   
> I think that it is these absolute statements that disturb me, 

What is absolute?  In the free world, there is no clear distinction
between a developer, a user (or a customer, etc.), and that's the
whole point.  Everyone can become a developer or assume that role
temporarily, and nobody dominates and controls the others.

When Linux became free software in 1992 every user could perform basic
tasks with a computer, because the main tools were already available.

So I pretty much reaffirm what I said.  Some tasks can only be done
with non-free software, still.  One should refuse to do them.

> > There are certain sacrifices you must do if you want to be a free
> > computer user, and that will be the case for some years to come.  
> No; and this is the subtle point: It is true that one can become a
> free computer user by making sacrifices, but by definition the
> sacrifices are easy or at least acceptable or they would not have
> been made.

> So when a die-hard FS user claims to have made "sacrifices" it's
> really just another way of saying that they didn't find the
> sacrifices to be too hard; so there is probably no great virtue in
> it, in which case condemnation against those who find the sacrifice
> too hard is rather shallow.

Oh, I have heard this "argument" before, unsurprisingly.  I was not
born a "die-hard FS user", for sure.  I used non-free software once,
and major activities of my life depended on non-free software.  I can
assure you the sacrifices I decided I must start making were not easy
at all.  It was a major change in the way I live or even look at the
world.  (And still are not easy -- for example, the switch from Debian
to gNewSense is a big regression from technical point of view for most
Debian users.)

Because I have gone through this (including on a corporate level), and
I know how much efforts and will it takes, I can say what I say with
clear conscience.  Feel free not to beleive all of that, of course.

> It's a way of saying "I'm noble because the sacrifice was convenient
> to me. Anyone who finds it harder than I did or learned later than I
> did is (for now) ignoble."

Rather, it's a convenient way to justify your actions and align the
ethical system you'd wish to pursue with them.  It is a way to
decrease the discomfort that is triggered by an action that
contradicts a value system you pledged to follow.

JFTR, I don't think that I'm any more "noble" than you or other by
deciding to follow such principles, I just think that your help is not
necessary, because the adoption is going on without any help.  And the
goal is the adoption of the ethical principles, not the practical
result that stems from them.

> > The magnitude of these compromises is dimminishing very quickly.
> 
> Which is in fact an acknowledgement of what I say; accepting that it
> has not yet fully diminished,

Yes, of course; this will take years, maybe even a few decades.

Some years ago it was not possible to send faxes on GNU/Linux.  It was
not possible to watch movies, to manipulate images, to stream
audio/vidoe, there was no free graphical web browser, etc.  Lots of
things were missing, and thanks to the community this gap is being
filled, much quicker than it was done in the 90's.

But I'll say it again: you want to justify the usage of non-free
software now as something acceptable and similar to the early
development of GCC.  That is totally wrong, and if you are really
aiming for a future entirely free world, you are undermining your
own efforts with the short-term benefit that you'll "convert" some
certain amount of users.

I admit I was doing something very similar in the late 90's/beg 00's,
and that's a mistake.  A grave mistake.

> > Once you have those, you can build the rest without relying on
> > non-free software at all.
> >   
> And do you say this as a non-developer to the other non-developers
> who at work have to use a B2B site with stupid flash menus?

You don't "have to" visit that site.  (Or today, you could even visit
that site with Gnash and swfdec, and help their developers nail bugs
if it doesn't work well.)

This comes with certain dose of inconvenience, such as explaining a
friend why you can't use the link she sent you, or telling your boss
that there is no way to do what he orders.  Sometimes it requires
going to a bank or IRS or some institution by feet, or using the phone
or snail mail to obtain the information you want (so there is certain
cost too, in some cases).

That's the kind of sacrifice I'm talking about, and it's not that huge
compared to the sacrifice made by the people who gave their lives for
a good cause.

In fact it is very ridiculous compared to that, but because we have
turned into a consumer society, it looks like something extremely odd
and bizarre.

> Nope, I think if I can make them switch, that then I can help them
> taste freedom.  

Making them switch to free software can't be bad.  But you are again
missing the point.  What is really important is if these users insist
on their freedom.  It is crucial to explain them why this system was
developed, and why it relies on them (the future citizens) never to
allow our world to be ruined.

Simply using and enjoying the large pool of free software packages
doesn't achieve that, especially if you teach them to accept non-free
software as legitimate compromise, when they need it.  It wipes out
everything.

> I'm interested in the process of freeing individuals.

And you're not really freeing them if you suggest that they use
Firefox, that's why the Gnuzilla project exists.

> But how will they know that there is a freedom until they taste it?
> Putting it into their hands and on their computer will let them
> realise it.

Not really, not according to my NSHO.  My boss is "tasting" freedom
for 5 years now (when we migrated to free software on all machines),
and he recently bought an iPhone (and is very happy with it).  He
equipped his yacht of all sorts of modern navigational equipment, and
these devices are computers now (they were not when I was actively
sailing).  In fact, they are more powerful computers than the machine
I'm composing this message right now.

He just waived a hand when I pointed him to John Sullivan's article
series at fsf.org.  He didn't even read a single line.

My uncle switched to GNU/Linux because someone told him Skype runs
"safer" there.  He still uses a proprietary database/organizer program
and is "enjoying" or "tasting" the freedom.  All my colleagues, past
and present, don't care at all about these freedoms.  Almost all
GNU/Linux machines I have installed for friends and relatives were
switched to Muck OS X or Ubuntu(+non-free stuff) subsequently.

That's the real picture of our community -- increasing number of
users, the majority of them not interested at all in the ideals of the
movement, let alone defending them.  Free software just started to
become ready for mass usage, and because it has certain practical
benefits, and is kinda fashionate to use it, people are migrating
(there are more reasons than these, naturally, but it's not important
at all).

Is this really a success?  Is this the main goal that we pursue?

> You have a very narrow mission.

In fact the opposite is true.  A narrow mission is a mission that
strives for "wide adoption" and popularity, and relies on inertia and
accidential events to end up with success automagically.

> Of course people had faced the problem before, just rewind 20 years
> and everyone was facing it.

I am talking about _now_.  We don't have to do that now, thanks to
others who developed a free replacement.  By "others" I mean literally
thousands of free software developers, and users who helped improve
the software by reporting bugs and suggestions for enhancements.

You seem to claim that the very same dillemas stand in front of people
nowadays -- that's miles away from the truth.  Light years, even, if I
remember the problems I was fighting with in 1996, say.

> because you think that non-free flash with firefox can never be used
> to promote FS aims?

Exactly.  It can never be used for that, as suggesting anything
non-free is self-defeating -- you are already telling people that
proprietary software is "OK", thus making the whole message
worthless.

(FWIW, I basically agree that "Windows+Firefox+non-free-plugins" is
better than "Windows+IE", but that's again the quantitive, arithmetic
approach.  If people really cared about freedom, they wouldn't use
Windows even for a minute.  Whether it helps them switch?  I seriously
doubt that.  If there are powerfull, feature-rich applications like
Emacs, Firefox, OOo, GTK+, ..., available for the system they feel
convenient, why should they switch?  They will switch only if they
value their freedom, and this feeling and willingness does not come
with "tasting" the freedom of Firefox or OOo.)

> I suggest that you have never observed it because you are rude to
> people who haven't yet met your outward degree of sacrifice.

I don't see how voicing an opinion as mine can be rude.  I skimmed
through our discussion so far, and I can't find anything in which I
accused you personally.  In fact the opposite is true (although I
don't feel accused as I'm used to that kind of accuses) -- your claim
that the sacrifices I've made were made because they're easy.  They
were everything but easy.

> Look at your use of the word "if"! You've answered the
> question. Such introduction can help IF the users embrace the values
> of the free software movement.

Well, you've answered the question too.  They can't possibly embrace
these values if you say that some certain non-free packages are OK to
use.  This directly contradicts with the values you wish to propagate,
so any rationally thinking person is going to detect that, consciously
or not.

It is almost equal to say this while advocating anti-racism:

"Distinguishing people by the color of their skin is unethical and
antisocial.  Speak with black people, sit at one table with them,
celebrate holidays together -- you'll discover that they are human
beings, and that's how you should treat them.  They are just like you,
and helping people is the basis of the society.  But those niggers
from that nasty ghetto can be treated differently, and you can enslave
them to work on your plantation, at least until the world advances
enough so that agriculture machines are produced and available at an
affordable price.  You know, sometimes it's not possible to earn
enough to feed your children, so doing that is reasonable."

You'll probably gain many "supporters" that way for the "antiracist"
movement; whether they'll entirely reject racism on the long term is
rather questionable.

Remember, non-free software is a social desease -- maybe not so
important and harmful as racism -- but that is the desease that the
GNU project set out to cure.  No such compromises can be made in this
battle, as doing so is a guarantee that there won't be a win at the
end.

So, to refer to something that you posted in this discussion -- it's
"White".  It's "white" all over.  It is about a complete, firm, and
definite liberation of every computer user.  It is about rejection of
non-free software just like slavery (in the trivial meaning of the
word) and racism are being rejected nowadays.

It is about freeing the world from the digital empires.