56 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
56 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
|
# Distros need to stop promoting nonfree software
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2023-06-22
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It is no secret that I can't stand the absolute state of the modern
|
||
|
|
GNU/Linux desktop. Even putting all of that aside though, there are
|
||
|
|
some other issues I want to talk about. I've talked a lot about
|
||
|
|
package management, audio and more, but the biggest problem is how
|
||
|
|
we (the community) approach the normies. Many of these easy
|
||
|
|
distributions come with a graphical package manager. Fair enough if
|
||
|
|
you're new, right? These package managers often have a "featured"
|
||
|
|
section, I know PopOS has one, and that's where the problem lies.
|
||
|
|
PopOS and likely other distributions are actively recommending
|
||
|
|
nonfree software through the "featured" section.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
That is a huge problem because by recommending nonfree software you are telling
|
||
|
|
normies that they SHOULD continue to use nonfree software, and they should not
|
||
|
|
adapt to our ideas and start using free software alternatives. I get that some
|
||
|
|
nonfree software just does not have good free software replacements, but you
|
||
|
|
as the distro maintainer need to be able to put your foot down, and stop
|
||
|
|
recommending Google Chrome or Microsoft Office or LastPass or other nonfree
|
||
|
|
software when there are clear free software alternatives that usually
|
||
|
|
accomplish the same task, and usually does a better job at it too.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The solution: Nonfree software should not be recommended by the GNU/Linux
|
||
|
|
community. There is no harm in keeping it available, if not intentionally
|
||
|
|
making it a little bit harder to install, because some users just are not able
|
||
|
|
to move away from it for many different reasons. But we should not make it as
|
||
|
|
easy to install nonfree software as it is to install free software. When you
|
||
|
|
install GNU/Linux, you should be encouraged to move away from nonfree software
|
||
|
|
for the most part in favor of free software that respects the user's
|
||
|
|
freedom and privacy. By recommending nonfree software, you are encouraging the
|
||
|
|
user not to care about privacy, and use GNU/Linux
|
||
|
|
because "it works better than Windows" rather than "I care about my privacy and security".
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
If you have read ploum.net's excellent article titled
|
||
|
|
[We need more of Richard Stallman, not less](https://ploum.net/2023-06-19-more-rms.html)
|
||
|
|
you're no doubt aware of this already, but the free software foundation has
|
||
|
|
slowly been replaced by the more corporate friendly open source movement which
|
||
|
|
doesn't care about your freedom, only the collaboration aspect of free software.
|
||
|
|
These same people want Stallman and the Free Software Foundation gone, because
|
||
|
|
they actively dislike free software. The thing is we NEED Stallman's extremist
|
||
|
|
views on software. We need to go all out on free software, not just use SOME
|
||
|
|
free software but mostly nonfree software, because if we don't we still have
|
||
|
|
terribly privacy and security. And when a "faster" or "better" version of the
|
||
|
|
free software comes out, why shouldn't we just use that instead?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The best way to spread free software and avoid spreading nonfree software is to promote
|
||
|
|
free software, and shame nonfree software for not respecting users' freedom and
|
||
|
|
privacy. Normies usually get into free software by using GNU/Linux, so there's an
|
||
|
|
excellent opportunity to promote free software rather than nonfree software.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Let me know what you think. Do you think it's justified to promote nonfree software?
|
||
|
|
Do you think we should be even more strict, maybe not even allow nonfree
|
||
|
|
software in the main repositories? I'm interested to hear about it. Have a good day.
|