Re: more evil firmwares found
* Nathanael Nerode [Mon, Apr 12 2004, 09:50:18PM]:
> > Is there a point to your bragging? (You've said that like 4 times in
> > the past hour.)
> It's not supposed to be bragging.
What else? Do you realize that you declare the most part of sold
hardware (in some areas) as evil and dead stuff, and the only
explanation/advice you provide is: buy-a-new-hardware-dude. What about
simple people that spent >>1k€ for a pre-configured box and expect to
run Linux on them? They cannot simply go and replace parts, this means a
lot of money (and time to sell the old components again). 7 years ago, I
could laugh about winmodems and such crap because they were an
exception. Today, this happens more and more often.
> > Or are you volunteering to buy the rest of us some cool
> > hardware like that?
> And it's not that cool, either. :-)
> (a) Nobody seems to be *listening*; they keep saying "Everyone will need
> this firmware!".
No. I think you are blinded after fighting the evil non-free software,
so much that you don't see the limits of feasibility.
> (b) I didn't pick *any* of this stuff with an eye to avoiding non-free
> firmware; it's a completely random sample.
> (c) It's all fairly cheap.
Bingo! And people often cannot choose what they buy. What about that?
GPLed drivers with just some (free modifiable and redistributable BLOBs)
are an acceptable solution.
> Therefore, I think the people who keep saying "Most people will need this
> firmware!" are smoking crack or something.
It's not said there. It's your interpretation. Maybe you should cool
down before reading this thread again.
> > Personally, I find it rather odd that there's this tempest in a teapot
> > over a couple of pieces of firmware when there are far larger matters,
> Yeah, I think it's odd too. Of course, I'm beginning to see a pattern: when
> non-free stuff is found, some people go "Oh dear -- we must remove that."
> Some people go "Well, *this* non-free stuff is *so important* that we
> should keep it in main, because Debian will be *useless* without it, and
> besides, it shouldn't have to follow the DFSG because it's in thus-and-such
> a category."
And some people say, it is NOT non-free. It is equaly free, and each
part of argumentation that you and some others wrote before have been
refuted very quickly.
Eine Erfolgsformel kann ich dir nicht geben; aber ich kann dir sagen,
was zum Mißerfolg führt: Der Versuch, jedem gerecht zu werden.
-- Herbert Swope