|
|
|
|
|
|
by NiveaGeForce
3035 days ago
|
|
|
I never loose time updating Windows, since I have it configured to update outside of active hours. Windows 10's window management is fine for the most part. I also don't use Emacs nor Vim. Also, I highly admire Stallman's dedication, and I hope that you're going all the way by only using free software and services, and not just when it suits your narrative. Also it's GNU/Linux. |
|
|
I do not agree to that. Improvement is always gradually, it is about learning how to do things. This is a gradual process. Requiring that somebody behaves in an all-or-nothing way is something which blocks experimentation, and also change.
I have seen this argumentative figure in a lot of discussions. Somebody wants do do something against climate change? Require that he lives in a cave, ceases to use electricity, and eats only raw food. But so much could be achieved if we impose a 5% energy tax, and stop to fly around for leisure.
Somebody wants a bit more privacy? Require that he stops to use email, does not use the net anymore, lives in a cave.... But so much could be achieved when people would stop to share intimate information and pictures of people who have not asked for that on facebook.
Somebody wants more road safety and better public transport? Require that he only uses a bicycle in the future, stops to use a taxi, stops using delivery services. And so on. Wait, I forgot he needs to live in a cave.
And now for serious. Stallman has pointed out that if somebody else controls the software on your computer, he has control over your computer, not you. Consequently, your computer will do things which are good for him, but not for you. If you look at things like privacy issues, software subscriptions, unwanted updates, unwanted audio recording by things such as Cortana and Chrome, apps sharing address book data from your phone, and so on, there is a huge number of things software does but the people on whose computers it runs would rather not want. Stallmans conclusion is that users need to control their software, and he has opened ways to do that. The GNU system and Linux are pieces which fit together to achieve that. With a Linux, or GNU/Linux system which is indeed the correct if not a but pedantic name, users do have that freedom. (As an aside, in a world in which FB profile data is mined to influence people to vote total lunatics into offices where real red buttons are in reach which can put not less than the entire human civilisation into ashes, that freedom absolutely matters because it becomes more and more a requirement for collective political freedom.)
I get that Microsoft is afraid of that freedom.