Lmao, this is why the FSF doesn't endorse Debian

>I'm sure many people read FSF website and articles and then decide to install gnu and try one of those no drivers distros and due to wifi not working go back to windows, it's just plain dumb.
this is the biggie
they act like if you use any non-free software you're throwing away 100% of your freedom, but using 99% free software gives you much more freedom than using 0% free software
(mildly related pic included so we can laugh at stallman for pretty much calling using non-free software an impossibility)

Attached: Capture.png (844x41, 6K)

>most computers wont work without some form of non-free wifi driver yet FSF completely disregards that fact for the sake of pure ideology.
false. Any desktop computer shouldn't even have a wifi card and any laptop can just swap out the wireless card for like $15.

>Any desktop computer shouldn't even have a wifi card
excuse me for not wanting to run a cable across multiple rooms and a level so i can use ethernet instead of wifi on my desktop

ask your mommy to move the router to your room.

There's only one wall port

The FSF is the Islamic State of free software, basically.

Choice #1
Use a distro that has a large, amazing group of maintainers and lots of packages and simply don't enable non-free packages

Choice #2
Use a distro that is maintained by a couple of people, has a userbase in the double digits and has no fucking packages

Only a true freetard would be stupid enough to not use Debian. I fucking hate extremists

The FSF are puritans because they have to be puritans for PR reasons.

>endorse a distro with literally any nonfree software in it
>nonfree software companies use it as proof that free software doesn't work, even if the removed nonfree software is just drivers for irrelevant hardware

I use debian but I go with openbsd’s definition of freedom which excludes firmware blobs. The FSF is okay with hardware containing firmware but is not okay with you loading the same exact firmware via the OS. That being said, I still respect the FSF and I’m happy they exist.

Thing is, Debian doesn't support (as in endorse) non-free software but they understand the impracticality of using free software exclusively in the real world thus they provide a way for users to be able to use small pieces of non-free software in conjunction of a big free software ecosystem.
Besides FSF is completely unrealistic when it comes to real world computer usage, they strongly discourage the use of webpages which use non-free JS which means most of the web, meaning that according to FSF you shouldn't be able to use most web services.
$15 can be expensive depending on your living circumstances, if you already own a wifi card buying another can be an unjustifiable cost.

If you care about having freedom then yes the 1% matters, especially when in a critical component such as the networking device. With a binary blob there is no way to verify malicious code isn't being run from an external source. There is also no point in seeking freedom if you give up at an arbitrary spot just because you think the last steps are too hard. The only person who loses out is you because even though you purged the botnets from your life, now you are still stuck with a backdoored wifi chip.

Anyway I don't know what your complaint is because the pic you posted even shows an easy and correct solution which is to get an external wifi adapter that does have free drivers. If your wifi chip doesn't then complain to the manufacturer. Blaming FSF for this is nonsense when it's not their problem.

>$15 can be expensive depending on your living circumstances
That's only expensive if you're a third worlder.

>now you are still stuck with a backdoored wifi chip.
You're still stuck with backdoored BIOS, CPU, harddrive, and many other things.
How is that an argument?
Third worlders don't deserve software freedom?

I'm not because I use libreboot on an old thinkpad.
I wouldn't mind using a newer PC if manufacturers respected my freedom.

>Third worlders don't deserve software freedom?
not him but ironically third worlders care more about freedom than first worlders. The FSF has a huge following in south america. A good portion of FSF distros are made by people in latin america. But if you’re at a point in your life where you can’t afford $15 then software freedom is the last thing you should worry about.

yeah... apparently the only freedom that stallman is interested in is the freedom to run the programs that he approves of.
that's kind of a twisted and tyrannical view of freedom.
>you're not free enough because you're able to freely choose to use the software that you want as a fully consenting adult

but what about the freedom of choice?
that's a freedom too, isn't it?

the only thing that is twisted if your understanding. Stallman doesn’t care if you run proprietary software, he doesn’t want to run it himself. His talks are geared towards those with this mindset and he states that he’ll even use windows if that’s the only OS available since nagging people solves nothing. You are free to enslave yourself if you want.

Is it intentional that gNewSense is pronounced like nuisance?

i never said the 1% didn't matter, it just matters much less than 100%

kek

You always have those freedoms, nothing is stopping you from using nonfree distros. The FSF not endorsing them is a marketing decision.
>twisted and tyrannical
Deciding not to host links to certain projects that he doesn't like on his own website is tyrannical?

yes, it is.

>I'm sure many people read FSF website and articles and then decide to install gnu and try one of those no drivers distros and due to wifi not working go back to windows, it's just plain dumb.
I'm sure pretty much nobody has done that. People who are willing to use Windows will start out with more mainstream distros that include nonfree software, like Ubuntu. Realistically, nobody who would listen to the FSF is going to think of Windows as the only alternative to a totally free distro. Give me a break.

So, NOT raping my daughter 99% of the time is SO much better than NOT raping her 0% of the time?

Sure she appreciates the difference.

Attached: roy-moore-b9d75a2e8a606793(1).jpg (2048x1384, 374K)

Yes, but my point is that it's preferable to use a free system with one or two non-free components than to use a fully non-free system, FSF's approach seems to be one of you either run 100% free software or use windows.
My point is that FSF's view of the world is black or white, instead of supporting a distribution that is indeed free and (non-officially) offers the option to get it to work on a wider variety of hardware with use of small non-free components, FSF chooses the approach of throwing away the hardware instead.

>The only person who loses out is you because even though you purged the botnets from your life, now you are still stuck with a backdoored wifi chip.
Unless you're using libreboot, your processor is backdoored. Guess installing free software was all for nothing.

Use the fat fucks gay gnu shit that was ripped off from other people's hard work.

But I am using libreboot.

same :^)

hope you're not using an x64 processor

I'm pretty sure there is still some nonfree stuff on there even with libreboot. Not all of us want to settle for a core 2 duo or whatever so going full autism isn't really an option.

Reminds me of when Stallman went to the OpenBSD mailing lists to spread his autism about why he didn't recommend OpenBSD and got BTFO by Theo and the other devs

You can read the thread here
marc.info/?t=119730647100001&r=26&w=2

>..you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole... You may have had value ten years ago, but people will see that you don't anymore.
>"OpenBSD.misc mailing list". 2007-12-14.
>To Richard Stallman

>The only way to make it clear to him that he should not come here to our lists in the future, is to teach him a hard lesson, and that is done by continually re-adding cc's back to him -- because the mails talk about him -- even when his friends come our mailing lists and delete the his address from the cc list. Like this message, which adds him back in. Richard, you are a lying cheating hypocrite.
>"OpenBSD.misc mailing list". 2007-12-14.

Attached: 1525240323836.jpg (1024x768, 152K)

naw youre wrong but ok. settle.

settle for freedom or settle for less

Theo the Chad
Stallman the virgin toe picker

so there is no binary code shipped with openbsd
or available through pkg_add
or auto downloaded on first boot
?

They have a policy of no blob by default running on the main CPU.
But it can download non-free firmware that run on devices like sound cards, etc.
And you can pkg_add stuff that is not free.

That is not why "RMS pants are full of hypocritical poo" (to quote Theo), though.
It's because RMS added support for proprietary software like Windows in his GNU crap, something he went sperging about on OpenBSD mailing lists.

Based Theo

web.archive.org/web/20081104101103/http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00505.html

>his GNU crap
Glibc is literally twice as fast as musl which OpenBSD uses.

interesting.
it can and does!
pkg_add chromium for example.

i think he got called out because 2 of the distros he recommended had lame and unrar support at a time they were nonfree (they may still be nonfree) and in the same breathe he came to their mailing list to say basically 'no thanks to your product'

i cant imagine what compelled him to start that email though

>musl which OpenBSD uses
LEL
Why are retards allowed on this board

Hmm Chromium is actually a bad example because it's BSD licensed.

Stallman is trying to be the leader of a philosophy and not a practical person

At least he never made that mistake again.

Attached: 4564556456.png (1012x380, 67K)

>It's much like the situation for Debian. When speaking privately to someone who is not likely to install non-free software, I can recommend the official Debian GNU/Linux system and warn him to avoid the nonfree section which is also on the Debian servers. But if I said that to the public, it would get simplified in transmission down to recommending everything on Debian's servers. Thus, I don't recommend Debian.
marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119766951930728

>dozens of autistic screeching childred vs a coherent and friendly stallman
surly rms was btfo

The FSF's attitude is generally a bit self-destructive -- they're fine with you having a machine that doesn't entirely work, as long as everything is FOSS. This is nonsensical.

If you've got a machine that doesn't work with your FOSS solution, you've got no use for said FOSS solution, and will just go back to Windows where your wifi and shit works.
As a result, free software can't gain a foothold of any sort. Software is a means to an end, and there's no point in using something that can't accomplish what you set out to do.

Luckily for everyone, no one actually cares what the FSF thinks. People say Linux instead of GNU/Linux, and people use Debian and Ubuntu instead of gNewSense or whatever retarded doesn't work on anything distro Stallman approves of.
If Stallman actually wasn't retarded, he'd be pushing for open hardware so he could reasonably suggest machines that run entirely free software.

Well, yes. Literally yes.
It is objectively a reduction in evil.

I just assumed so because it was slow as fuck. Pic related is their naive implementation of strlen, which is 0.4x as fast as glibc.
>cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/string/strlen.c?rev=1.9&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup

Attached: Screenshot_2019-04-26_18-51-37.png (629x604, 49K)

Richard Stallman truly is the “THERE ARE NO APACHES IN TERRARIA” guy of the computing world

>Theo
Who?

That's the right way to develop a standard library. A standard, simple, sane implementation of primitives.

If, for any reason, you were running a program where strlen was a bottleneck (can't think of any case but I'm sure it happens), you'd be optimizing that part with your own routine, and probably do the sensible thing, which is to use Pascal-style strings.

This shows that OpenBSD developers are mature engineers, not GNU autists.

What did Theo saw, Jow Forums?

Attached: 54355434353.jpg (800x600, 177K)

*groans and engages in lite eye-rolling*
Imagine having a social contract with your OS

Ethical child porn (released under a Creative Commons license)

By pulling as hard as they do in the far extreme of software freedom advocacy they might not amass a huge following of purists, but they do pull the rug far enough towards them that the general idea is still considered wherever possible. This is really the only reason a distro like Ubuntu isn't just a locked down blob. No other kind of group but the FSF could endorse licensing like the GPL, or create such a political force behind it by its very reputation to maintain its viability.

The FSF exists to promote software freedom. If they had their way in full, we'd have a 100% free ecosystem and nobody would have to make any compromises. But as long as such a thing doesn't exist, being an advocate will always run up against convenience.

Once you start processing any amount of strings, you'll need to know their length.
C makes it decidedly inconvenient to work with Pascal style strings, and libraries in general use C-style ones anyway.
There's no real reason for providing a naive implementation when there's a better option, certainly not if you're providing something as important as the standard library.
glibc does the sensible thing and doesn't scan one byte at a time, instead working with the system's actual fucking word length, 4 or 8 bytes.

doing the naive thing is reasonable when you're starting out, no point in optimizing early
but ultimately, you want your basic primitives to be useful
strlen is called an absolute asston of times due to how much string processing happens on a typical machine, it better be smoking fast

>tfw my strlen is better than openbsd's
size_t strlen(const char *s)
{
return *s ? 1 + strlen(++s) : 0;
}

Attached: 1412554161703.jpg (490x480, 23K)

An FSF-apptoved distro wouldn't support the internal card in the related pic. He doesn't even install his OS himself.

It's more complicated than that.
lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-02/msg00009.html

very nice.

But does the FSF approve of the toilet I use for shit and piss?

>Free Software Foundation does not endorse Nonfree Software
What is so hard to understand here?

>not using a bidet
No, they do not approve.

No compromises. We need someone to support software freedom 100%, even when it goes against practicality and convenience.

Wrong

Attached: IMG_0108.png (1000x786, 983K)

Terrible, make it tail recursive with an accumulator if you want it to be an improvement.

considering I sideloaded fucking oracle express edition on his little bitch distro Trisquel I'd say that statement is false.

FSF Fundation

If its not a paid toilet

Eww, why would you do that? I'd rather run proprietary Microsoft software than proprietary Oracle software.

The recursion is optimized away

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Optimization can only happen, in general, to tail recursive functions. I wouldn't assume the compiler was smart enough to transform any function into a tail-recursive function. You can't just make a statement like that without disassembling and proving it.

godbolt.org/z/qN-c22
Sure doesn't look optimized away to me.

>Free Software Foundation will never get through to masses if they recommend gNewSense over Debian
>Debian is free as in freedom as well and gNewSense has two users total, both are its own devs of course
What is so hard to understand here?

>getting through to the masses is more important than freedom
That is not the FSF's position.

Hello Luke, you magnificent autist.

Me too. Unfortunately I find that most of the time I end up using a non-free desktop when I'm at home.

Clang optimizes it. And compiling as C++ optimizes it for some reason

Attached: Screenshot_2019-04-26_20-06-42.png (1261x387, 49K)

If you'd rather run SQL Server than Oracle, you are retarded.

My post was comparing the average piece of Microsoft software to average Oracle software. It's disingenuous to read my post as if I'm comparing Microsoft's SQL server to Oracles.

I reject your new speak, FSF is a cult.

>be Stallman
>muh free as in freedom
>complain when a distribution doesn't brick your system when non-free software is detected

Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work “uses a Creative Commons license” is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to change the work to state clearly and visiblywhichof the Creative Commons license it uses. And if someone proposes to “use a Creative Commons license” for a certain work, it is vital to ask “Which Creative Commons license?” before proceeding any further.
gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#which-cc

well, he's not wrong.

How do you hope to expand your movement, if you never go to the mass?
How do you hope to convince hardware manufacturers to make free/open hardware, if only 5 people in the world are interested in such thing?

>watch any interview with stallman
>he constantly swings between a petulant child and a bully
>berates interviewers for asking challenging questions
Like Nietzsche said, any philosophy is just a philosopher revealing is psychology

It's almost as if the FSF is a cult

Attached: thinking.gif (368x368, 2.32M)

Isn't what Stallman suggests fundamentally unfree though, surely a truly free operating system gives the user the choice of both free and non-free software? An operating system that only gives free software and prevents the user from easily installing proprietary software means the operating system is trying to control the user which is unfree?