Re: Adobe Flash
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:55 +0000, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 November 2015 16:55:43 moxalt wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:34:38 +0000, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 19:24:31 moxalt wrote:
> > > > > The OP is currently watching the
> > > > > news on Doze. Hardly more secure than flash
> > > >
> > > > And OP should do neither.
> > >
> > > That's a bit arrogant - saying that other people shouldn't watch the news
> > > on their computers because you would choose not to do so.
> > >
> > > Lisi
> >
> > I don't think advocating that others should follow certain ethical
> > principles is at all arrogant. What you're accusing me of is telling others
> > to reject non-free software because I do so. This is not true. I think
> > people in general should not use proprietary software, and I comply by this
> > ethical principle. In what way is recommending that others should do the
> > same arrogant?
>
> Telling others what they "should" do is arrogant.
I disagree. Condemning anyone for ever telling anyone to do anything as
'arrogant' is plain silly. If I am to be called 'arrogant' for advocating
certain principles, so be it.
What word would you have me use so that others do not feel uncomfortable? What
would you have me do? Should (there it is again!) I simply deliver my opinions
in terms of imperatives- do this and do that? That seems far more arrogant to
me.
I find it somewhat peculiar that you would find the word 'should' so
triggering. I tell people that they should do things all the time, and others
tell me that I should do things all the time. I am not in any way offended by
this. If I agree, I will express my agreement and do the thing that they think
I should do. If I disagree, I will explain why and refuse.
> Especially on this forum
> on occasions where people are only using the Debian repositories.
I don't understand this.
> It is admirable that you are prepared to make sacrifices for your
> principles. Telling others that they "should" make sacrifices for your
> principles is arrogant. Persuade them by all means. But if you are so dead
> set against all use of non-free or not-quite-fully-free software, use one of
> these: http://www.gnu.org/distros/
I was a Trisquel user for a long time. I still recommend Trisquel to those new
to the world of free software. Personally I prefer Debian. As long as non-free
and contrib are not enabled, Debian is just as free as any of those
distributions. However, as
https://www.gnu.org/distros/optionally-free-not-enough.html points out,
distributions which merely present a choice between freedom and subjugation are
not good enough for people who are not committed free software users and who
are not prepared to defend their freedom when the choice is offered.
This is why the distributions listed at
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html should be recommended to the
general public.
> Contrib and non-free Debian repositories exist. We are entitled to use them
> in peace and without being given moral lectures and being carpeted like
> naughty schoolboys.
This is true.
> And I use Linux. You use GNU/Linux. Again, bully for you. That is a matter
> of semantics.
I use both Linux and GNU/Linux. Linux is my kernel; GNU/Linux is my operating
system.
Once upon a time, I called the whole thing Linux too.
Reply to: