[Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On 10/16/16, Wookey <wookey at wookware.org> wrote:
> On 2016-10-15 16:47 -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
>
>> I too believe that Debian is hosting nonfree software and integrating
>> nonfree software with free software and this is indistinguishable from
>> what
>> other distros not listed do (such as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux).
>
> There is a difference: Ubuntu will install non-free software (firmware
> needed to make hardware work, and binary drivers) by default. Debian
> will not do so unless the user adds the non-free repository (SFAIK).

 appreciated you pointing out the distinction / differenec, wookey.  i
only became aware of the FSF's position from my conversations with
josh gay, some eight or so months ago.  i've mentioned them on here
before: you may have missed them (i'm aware you're a lurker) so am
happy to repeat them in this context.

 the FSF figures that technically-competent people can look after
themselves.  "technically-competent" is defined as loosely fitting
with "someone who has the capacity to take the initiative to seek out
help online or from friends, where such help requires *explicit*
following (and trust of) *specific* instructions, step-by-step without
deviation or elaboration, usually at the command-line".

 the FSF's position there covers *everyone else*, who, by definition,
cannot trust or be trusted to follow explicit written or verbal
instructions, cannot cope with a command-line prompt, cannot
comprehend the consequences of their actions, does not understand or
read "terms and conditions" and so on.

 these are the people whom the FSF's position protects (from
themselves) - they are the people who are extremely likely to go
*click* synaptics package manager what's that it's not enabled *click*
i wonder what nonfree is don't understand don't care oh well let's
enable it anyway *click* oh look there's these extra packages i wonder
what they do *click* and now they've opened up a means to compromise
their computer and their privacy without *ever* encountering a warning
that that was even possible.

 *that's* what the FSF objects to about debian.  it's not that the
packages *are* separate, it's that it's *too easy* to install them
without any warning of any kind, whatsoever.

 we as technical people just go in and edit /etc/apt/sources.list and
add "nonfree" to the end of the appropriate deb line.  *non-technical*
people run synaptics and its ilke, where there's a GUI-based
no-warnings-whatsoever option *right there* in the menus / dialogs, to
enable non-free repositories.

 anyway. thank you for making me aware that FSF documentation is
qualified as non-free, that really made my day.

l.