I'd place my bets that MS would buy Canonical since they already have a relationship.
227 karma · joined January 12, 2017
I would have bought one of these if the license was not so restrictive.
[1] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
[2] Knight OS http://www.knightos.org/
You mean perpetuating theft from future generations and being self entitled? I learned quite early on that you can't and should not expect a single thing from anyone. I hate how many people on here perpetuate the idea of forced theft to provide more money to a broken education system that has a focus on profits instead of what it turns out. I would also go further and say that many schools offer stale programs that don't prepare individuals for their field of study. Self entitlement and socialism are not the answer since there is a price for everything in life and it's not free if the cost is someone's time, energy or life.
What would help is to teach people how to learn, find useful career paths and to create useful things. Getting a useless liberal arts degree does not help if you can't reasonably get a paying job with it.
Razer's lack of cooperation is not taking away freedom from the user. Razer did not promise to provide "Linux" support and they are not obligated to do so. The firmwares themselves are already non-free and generally have EULAs tied to them which take away that freedom . If you wanted that freedom of choice in the first place, you should have bought hardware that offers that.
> How exactly does it hurt them to have unofficial Linux firmware?
It does hurt Razer to have "unoffical Linux firmware" because they would have new liabilities, possible legal issues in terms of licenses or an image problem if an update results in a brick.
I can't believe how many people think they are entitled to support for something that was never claimed to be supported. If you want "Linux" support, buy hardware that offers just that.
Updating firmware from a system that is in an unknown state has high risks, especially if untrusted software is being run (like on most Linux systems). What if the user pulls the power or there is not enough juice left in the battery when an update has started? Many consumer devices don't have fallback firmware to account for such issues. Not being able to revert cleanly to a last good known firmware if something goes wrong will be an issue.
> Why do you believe firmware shouldn't be updated regularly just like we're used to do it with regular software?
OEMs quite frequently push updates that break something since they can't account for all of the configurations that their hardware will be used; sometimes they push botched uCode updates or other components they can't fully account for.
Razer is not a "Linux" first company anyway and it does not help to cry about it on a blog or complain when their hardware does not work well on "Linux" in the first place.
It won't be if you taint what you are working on. Just looking at this will cause lots of legal problems down the road.
We still continue to lose control of our tools because of the compromises we make or because some of us are tone deaf to the fact we need control over the various components in our computers (my favorite arguments : it's too complicated, not smart enough, because reasons...). The reason we are here is because not enough people care until it is too late, infrastructure fails, a new trendy security issue has been named or we find out that component X is running software that does something we don't like. The first step is education and getting enough people demanding hardware/software that makes no compromises on user control and freedom.
So, critical components that have issues : GPG, GNU TLS, GCC, Make, glibc, etc... are not important? If the tools that everything else is built upon are not being maintained, then a lot of infrastructure fails in spectacular ways. If these things are not important, I guess that I've been using the wrong tools and OS.
> They take care of longer term issues, such as enforcing the GPL, defending it in lawsuits, writing good free software licences, raising awareness about issues (DRM, vendor lock-in, etc.), increasing free software use around the world.
They have failed at these things for a long time. The FSF has not had any engaging campaigns in quite a long time (more than 5 years); writing a blog post and an angry letter does not usually get the job done (see HTML5 EME campaign). GPL enforcement from the FSF is a joke since they take forever to respond to anything and by the time they get to it, the device / software is no longer sold / shipped. I also don't see any new striking licenses on the horizon being drafted by the FSF.
While not a freedom issue, they endorsed PureOS even though it uses a Debian kernel (linux-libre Vs. Debian kernel, not going to get into that here) while another distro was denied for that specific thing.
> Increase innovation and the number of new projects in high priority areas of free software development, including the GNU Project;
I'll believe it when I see it. We have become too dependent on core components that are not being properly maintained, lack funding or both. This won't solve the funding issue if these funds are squandered on a bunch of new projects and management.
I won't give another dime to the FSF until management changes, campaigns actually does something engaging with the community and more funding is put towards critical GNU components (instead of new bloated projects). I still support the idea of Libre / Free Software, just not the religion and church that popped up around it. I'd like to see an organization that advocates for Free Software and is consistent in their mission (Hint : OSI and the Linux Foundation are not a fit).
I guess that AMD uCode updates are applicable to the Raspberry PI.
Don't you mean the last administration? Pai has been with the FCC since 2011.
> Leave the regulation in place, or at least put some serious conditions and stimuli for new broadband investments if you're going to repeal NN.
You mean government regulation that does nothing to the big players? The government still has failed to go after Comcast after they violated the terms of the Comcast - NBCUniversal merger. Or what about the millions of dollars given to Verizon to expand their FiOS network and have yet to make good on that.
Crying more government regulation does not help if the government picks and chooses who it will go after and when. If anything, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) should be where "Net Neutrality" should be enforced since this would be an issue of failing to provide a good or service.
Edit: Missing word.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch...
How so? I buy lunch with Bitcoin and a few weeks ago I paid for a car repair with it. If I need more, I just go to a bitcoin vending machine near by.
s/Government have/Google has/g
> Governments are less accountable than any private individual or organization. Organizations are at least accountable to shareholders, the rule of law, and the government they operate under.
Again s/Governments/Organizations/g
> - Domestic organizations are at least ostensibly committed to maintaining the system, many foreign governments literally want to tear the system down.
Based upon what? Is that any justification for propaganda? Both Facebook and Google are both domestic entities and look at all of the polarization and discord that they have caused this election cycle.
> - Governments have a historical track-record of tyranny, and have generally caused more harm than private organizations.
In this era, the source of tyranny is private corporations that grant themselves monopolies with red tape and further regulations that make competition impossible. I guess based upon your arguments, we should grant private corporations a monopoly on speech.