Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Proposal to revise FSDG to exclude SaaSS-only software clients

[bill-auger]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:10:18 +0300 Jean wrote:
> he can make his own distribution policies and make distribution
> better than then what FSDG requires it, just as Hyperbola
> GNU/Linux-libre is doing it.

it is not my distro - there is no "I", who makes policy for
parabola - that is the one aspect, where adhocracy does not
apply - the opinion of every user is given equal weight in all
policy-like decisions - i was simply out-voted, on the issue of
'telegram-desktop' - i wanted to remove it, but parabola users
wanted to keep it - it is FSDG-fit, so i did not impose my
personal preference, and i did not complain about the outcome

"better" is a subjective criteria - not everyone is so fervent
about internet privacy - parabola does a _huge_ amount of extra
work, beyond what the FSDG requires; because those extra things
have value to some, though not all, among libre-minded folks -
anyone who values any of those extra things, would be entitled
to the opinion that parabola is already "better"; because
(correct me if im wrong) parabola is the only FSDG distro which:

* supports ARM (very important for self-hosting and hobbyists)
* supports RISC-V and POWER9 (libre hardware beyond thinkpads)
* offers the choice of init-systems
* offers privacy-enhanced builds of software,
  in addition to the full-featured, FSDG-fit builds

if some people value the extra things that hyperbola does,
which no other distro does, then they can run hyperbola, and are
entitled to the opinion that hyperbola is "better" - no distro
can satisfy everyone - there is no objective: "_is_ better" -
there is only: "that one suits me better"

regardless of how awesome i think parabola is, i never miss an
opportunity to suggest, that most people should _not_ run
parabola as their primary system, but that an LTS distro
probably suits them better


On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:10:18 +0300 Jean wrote:
> But then at least FSDG could say that distribution managers could
> adopt their own policies
> , but may not be political followers of the FSF in all aspects.

it "could" mention that, or anything, from an infinite list of
things, which are _not_ expected, such as:

* we do not expect anyone to donate to the FSF
* we do not expect attendance at our IRL protests in boston
* we do not expect anyone to wear an GNU t-shirt to church

it is conventional, that any requirements list or specification,
requires only what is explicitly stated - anything else is
"undefined behavior"