> Most of these distributions have a very paternalistic implementation where the "de-blobbed" linux-libre kernel is the only option, thus limiting users' agency.
This is such a weird way to put it. You know going into it that a libre distro is not going to have all the functionality of non-fully-libre distros because they don't use proprietary code.
They're not limiting your agency. You can still choose to run a different distro. Obviously there will be things that you can't do on full libre systems because non-proprietary code doesn't exist for some functionality.
Like another commenter in the thread pointed out, it's like choosing to ride a bicycle and then complaining that it removes your agency to sit in a seat and be powered by an internal combustion engine?
It's like the author is trying to come up with a hot take, but it's something that everyone who uses a libre system knows, understands and is okay with?
Also, this article conflates 'open-source' and 'libre'.
> Like another commenter in the thread pointed out, it's like choosing to ride a bicycle and then complaining that it removes your agency to sit in a seat and be powered by an internal combustion engine?
Except you can do that with bikes. You can fit a motor on a bike and turn it into a moped/motorized bicycle. Which means this is actually a great analogy. It's like buying a bike that is specially designed to defeat any attempts at attaching a motor to it, because the bicycle manufacturer believes that bicycles should only ever be human-powered regardless of circumstances.
Maybe you bought this bike because you liked their message of "no cars, only bikes!" and associated branding, but you didn't actually care that strongly about their extreme anti-motor stance. But now you've moved to a place with lots of hills and you can't get around very easily as it's too tiring to go up all those hills, so you'd like to attach a motor just for the hills and you can't. Or maybe you have Long COVID and the fatigue is enough that you can't pedal very much anymore, so you want a motor to give you assistance and allow you to choose whether to pedal or to let the motor take over depending on how you feel.
But since you bought a bike that prevents this, your only option now is to get rid of it, buy a brand new bike, new seat (since your old bike used non-standard seats), new saddle bags (since your old bike used non-standard saddle bags), and all of the other more minor details that go into switching from one type of bike to another. It's a big expense and takes a lot of time and energy to deal with, and until you do you're stuck at home with no way to get around, since that bike was your sole lifeline to the world.
Linux itself is niche in the consumer space (not counting Android, Steam Deck and such)... fully-libre distros are ultra-niche. An average user migrating to Linux is very unlikely to even come across them, so most of the arguments made in the article don't apply in practice. As for technically aware users, again, nothing stops them from nuking their Parabola install and replacing it with Ubuntu in less time than it would take to write this article.
Let niche projects be. They serve people who seek them out. They don't aspire for the general case, and this rant is misplaced. Seems to be motivated by Stallman hate, frankly.
Stallman is a symptom of a much larger problem with the FSF, and not because he's a creep. (well, also, because it drove contributors away, but that's aside the point)
The FSF is irrelevant in discussions about FOSS, because they are absolutely unwilling to compromise. They purport to being a movement, but they do everything in their power to stay as small and elitist as possible. Like recommending extremely niche distros that will provide a bad experience on 99% of computers you run it on (and insecure on 100%).
So there are plenty of reasons to write this article that have nothing to do with RMS. We could've had effective software freedom advocacy, but all we got was elitist entitled bickering about how everyone else is unethical and interviews full of FSF spokespeople nitpicking to a degree most people will roll their eyes and move on immediately. I guess that's mostly RMS, and he simply doesn't have the charisma to pull it off well.
Someone has to compromise on an imperfect solution that works now. Someone else has to keep pushing the boundaries of what can be done without compromise, and that’s what the FSF is suited for.
I don't really get it. If you don't want the harsh limitations of a distribution like this, intentionally made with these limitation as its main feature, why run it? A piece of software that doesn't do the things you want existing is in no way limiting your agency.
Guix intentionally does not patch security vulnerabilities if those fixes happen to be in proprietary blobs. Their stance on security is completely reckless and Guix has no place near my devices.
How do you know these blobs fix anything and aren't just padded up for checksum dofference? Do you disassemble and analyze these things? Do you trust companies?
In my experience, most security patches are future proofing. What's wrong with having a locked down firewall, not running weird software, and setting up apparmor or selinux?
People will go on using open source OSs and libraries, SW, but not those under the GNU moniker. And while desktop linux is a niche it is important to have choices and that it works well with existing hardware.
Practicality outlives idealism and I'm glad the kernel developers see this (while worrying about its open source and free nature).
There are plenty of very widely used Linux distros using GNU software that include proprietary blobs. eg. Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE, Arch, ... It's not an either-or.
No. If only because you can get motorized bicycles, with an ICE and a seat.
If you want an analogy, it's like saying a product with a NEMA 5-15 grounded power plug (the one with 3 prongs) removes your agency to use a NEMA 1-15 ungrounded (2-prong) outlet.
Even if the product doesn't require a ground, and will work with a cheater plug.
When I wrote that bit I made the assumption that violating the rules of the channel could get you banned. I admit that it looks wrong in hindsight, so I am pushing a commit to amend it.
TLDR of your comment: there is a problem. which doesn't affect me in the same way, if at all really. therefore i must exercise misogyny. it's free karmaaaa
This is such a weird way to put it. You know going into it that a libre distro is not going to have all the functionality of non-fully-libre distros because they don't use proprietary code.
They're not limiting your agency. You can still choose to run a different distro. Obviously there will be things that you can't do on full libre systems because non-proprietary code doesn't exist for some functionality.
Like another commenter in the thread pointed out, it's like choosing to ride a bicycle and then complaining that it removes your agency to sit in a seat and be powered by an internal combustion engine?
It's like the author is trying to come up with a hot take, but it's something that everyone who uses a libre system knows, understands and is okay with?
Also, this article conflates 'open-source' and 'libre'.