On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:53:15 +0200, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
The first technical moves of the FSF was to implement an libre editor, and libre compiler on top of a proprietary operating system (UNIX). The goal was to replace it, piece by piece.
If the people at the FSF had been so strict at that time, the GNU Project and the FSF would not exist today.
This is like climbing a mountain using a proprietary equipment; when you go up, you throw all non-free ladders and ropes and make free ones, so the other alpinists can join you using the free tools. You never look back for them, their only purpose is to help you make your own and go higher. Err, that doesn't sound like a good comparison, but you got the idea. One by one the free software programmers were cleaning their machines -- currently there is not a single piece of non-free software installed on the GNU machines.
Sometimes, even today, in order to develop a free program, one has to use a non-free one. I guess that the Samba developers use a Windows server -- it is necessary for Samba development.
Also, remember that most today's processors are proprietary, and that they have software in them, which executes x86 or x86_64 instructions (the CPU microcode).
This software is a very important part of a computer system: no software can run without it.
This is an important issue. Also some architectures require non-free software to work (such as oldworld Macs).
Also, the BIOS of every machine is proprietary. There are efforts to develop a libre BIOS, however I didn't see any partnership from the FSF with a hardware manufacturer in order to deploy it somehow. That could be interesting, for many reasons.
Why is the FSF not pushing the design and release of a new microcode processor, fast and efficient, instead of letting people run libre software on top of a so proprietary architecture ?
FSF's resources are not unlimited -- I guess this is the main reason.
You just have to *define* where the limit is.
There is no limit. The Free Software Movement is just the beginning -- we want free books, free music, free movies, practically everything that is possible to be set free. We don't want to be controlled by feudals and mega-corporations.
I am pretty well today with a proprietary processor containing proprietary software microcode; and I can stand a proprietary BIOS, at least on my laptop.
Until there is a free replacement we don't have a choice, really, if we want (or have to) use computers. This doesn't make me happy.
I pretty much understand why we should raise the limit. I am in the libre software business for about 5 years and I try not to compromise with it. But people at the FSF should really learn that it's a daily fight, and sometimes, we *do not* have any solution for the customer and have to admit it.
This is true and unfortunate -- not every piece of existing proprietary software has a free program to replace it, so some users are locked and forced to use non-free software. The purpose is to resolve and wipe this dependency. It won't happen if we recommend non-free software.