We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!
-
-
@izzion He's got a point. If you say 'fuck this shit' and give up computers, you are the freest of all.
-
Ah, good-ol' RMS. Isn't he cute when he tries to interact with normal people?
-
@Zerosquare People who go to install parties are nowhere close to normal. Hell, I had no idea those were still happening.
Anyway, instead of the devil having, well, a devil mask, they could dress him up as Bill Gates.
-
The install fest would tolerate the devil's presence but not officially sponsor the devil, or publicize the devil's availability. Therefore, the users who accept the devil's deal would clearly see that the devil installed the nonfree drivers, not the install fest. The install fest would not be morally compromised by the devil's actions, so it could retain full moral authority when it talks about the imperative for freedom.
The rest of it is totally non-ridiculous, of course, but I don't see how this morally absolves them. It's not like a bathroom at a nightclub; the devil wouldn't have been hanging out at the free software party handing out drivers if they hadn't invited him.
-
The problem with ideologues is that they want a world where everyone cares about the things they care about with the same zeal they do. And that just won't happen. People care about a handful of things, and that's it. No one can care about everything, there's just not enough time in the world to champion every cause.
Which is not to say that I'm not grateful they exist, they care about things so I don't have to. Computers are very powerful, they control most of the modern world such that or current standard of living would be impossible without them, and keeping them open and accessible to everyone ensures that that power doesn't become concentrated in a few hands.
-
@blek There's a hierarchy.
- First there's normal people
- Then there's the standard open source enthusiasts that know their way around a Linux distro or two
- Then there's the hardcore open source believers that will try to school you of its virtues at every opportunity and insist that Cinelerra is just as good as Adobe Premiere Pro (and if it's missing some feature, you can just add it yourself)
- Then there's the people still doing things like install parties, using GPG encryption for all emails and probably still carrying a Knoppix 4.0 LiveCD everywhere they go
- And way up top there's Richard Stallman, browsing the web on a Minifree Libreboot T400 (certified free of binary blobs), reading websites in text mode via a script that wgets the URLs and sends him the contents by email
-
@Kian said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Which is not to say that I'm not grateful they exist, they care about things so I don't have to.
Careful. That's how we got SJWs!
-
@blek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Hell, I had no idea those were still happening.
Still? I had no idea they were even a thing.
-
@anonymous234 said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@blek There's a hierarchy.
- First there's normal people
- Then there's the standard open source enthusiasts that know their way around a Linux distro or two
- Then there's the hardcore open source believers that will try to school you of its virtues at every opportunity and insist that Cinelerra is just as good as Adobe Premiere Pro (and if it's missing some feature, you can just add it yourself)
- Then there's the people still doing things like install parties, using GPG encryption for all emails and probably still carrying a Knoppix 4.0 LiveCD everywhere they go
- And way up top there's Richard Stallman, browsing the web on a Minifree Libreboot T400 (certified free of binary blobs), reading websites in text mode via a script that wgets the URLs and sends him the contents by email
That's a long-winded way of saying that RMS lives in an ivory tower that's so lofty that all he can see is the tops of other people's ivory towers.
-
given the fact that most install fests quietly play the role of the devil, I think that an explicit devil would be less bad. It would convert the install-fest dilemma from a debilitating contradiction into a teaching experience.
Yes, it will teach people to use a different operating system that will let them use all of their computer’s and peripherals’ capabilities without having to deal with self-righteous Linux geeks.
I have no problem at all with using Linux, but I would like its proponents to be more … well, helpful when I’m trying to troubleshoot a problem.
-
@anonymous234 said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
probably still carrying a Knoppix 4.0 LiveCD everywhere they go
*silently renames Knoppix.iso on the repair toolkit drive...*
-
I would love to watch what happens at a actual "install fest."
-
@Kian said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
The problem with ideologues is that they want a world where everyone cares about the things they care about with the same zeal they do. And that just won't happen.
It happened with transgenders
-
This post is deleted!
-
@blek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Zerosquare People who go to install parties are nowhere close to normal. Hell, I had no idea those were still happening.
Me neither, but they sounds somewhat erotic, ment for real fetishists.
Anyway, instead of the devil having, well, a devil mask, they could dress him up as Bill Gates.
Can't imagine the people, who visit these parties, will be "closer to normal" when the devil is cos-playing as Bill Gates.
-
It's immoral to ask for money for your work?
How do these guys buy food?
-
@xaade said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
How do these guys buy food?
They grow it themselves
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@anonymous234 said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@blek There's a hierarchy.
- First there's normal people
- Then there's the standard open source enthusiasts that know their way around a Linux distro or two
- Then there's the hardcore open source believers that will try to school you of its virtues at every opportunity and insist that Cinelerra is just as good as Adobe Premiere Pro (and if it's missing some feature, you can just add it yourself)
- Then there's the people still doing things like install parties, using GPG encryption for all emails and probably still carrying a Knoppix 4.0 LiveCD everywhere they go
- And way up top there's Richard Stallman, browsing the web on a Minifree Libreboot T400 (certified free of binary blobs), reading websites in text mode via a script that wgets the URLs and sends him the contents by email
That's a long-winded way of saying that RMS lives in an ivory tower that's so lofty that all he can see is the tops of other people's ivory towers.
But only when bent over to chew his bunions...
-
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I have no problem at all with using Linux, but I would like its proponents to be more … well, helpful when I’m trying to troubleshoot a problem.
This has literally never happened to me. You're probably using a proprietary Nvidia GPU, in which case you deserve to have your computer burst into flames. Try FUDing harder next time.
-
@bb36e said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
You're probably using a proprietary Nvidia GPU, in which case you deserve to have your computer burst into flames.
I'd hazard a guess that this is exactly the kind of statement @Gurth was referring to...
-
@anonymous234 said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
First there's normal people
And what about the common people?
-
@ixvedeusi, this is Joke.
Joke, this is @ixvedeusi.
-
@xaade said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
It's immoral to ask for money for your work?
How do these guys buy food?
No, you see, you can still sell GPL software so it's OK! I mean people will download it for free from someone else so you'll probably only sell one copy. But you can make money selling support!
Seriously though. That's the main problem with free software. Yes, freedom is nice and all, but what about getting paid to do stuff? Do we just give up on the idea that works everywhere else? They always deflect by pointing out you can still sell support contracts or whatever alternate business model you can come up with, but those are just bad workarounds.
If I cared enough about freedom, I'd start a "free as in freedom but not as in beer" movement where you pay for a license but still get the source code and permission to modify it for your own uses.
-
@anonymous234 said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
But you can make money selling support!
And it works quite well for some companies. And others have started doing software as coproduct, or open-sourcing the generic bits of their platforms, because then they benefit from cooperating on them with others.
-
@anonymous234 the free software movement was started because Stallman was pissed that the driver for his printer has a bug and he couldn't get it fixed. I think that if the movement focused specifically on drivers, they'd get much larger support and be more successful - because "you won't make any money" counterargument completely disappears in this case, as the company makes money on the hardware first and foremost, not the software. If every electronic device had a public specification of all its input and output interfaces, that would be a real blessing for the Linux world (and all other non-mainstream platforms), and I don't see any major downsides to that.
-
@Zecc said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Joke, this is @ixvedeusi.
WhoTF is this Joke guy and what is he doing in my computer?? Tell him to go away.
-
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
given the fact that most install fests quietly play the role of the devil, I think that an explicit devil would be less bad. It would convert the install-fest dilemma from a debilitating contradiction into a teaching experience.
Yes, it will teach people to use a different operating system that will let them use all of their computer’s and peripherals’ capabilities without having to deal with self-righteous Linux geeks.
I have no problem at all with using Linux, but I would like its proponents to be more … well, helpful when I’m trying to troubleshoot a problem.
If you need help with Linux you have to know how to ask the right way.
Wrong: How do I [do something] in Linux?
Wrong: I'm having trouble with [some problem]
This will get you nowhere. Someone will call you a nub and tell you to RTFM.Right: Linux is a fucking pile of shit because it can't [do something]
Right: I've had it with this stupid Linux and [some problem]. I'm going back to Windows.
This will get every Linux user tripping over their own dicks to prove you wrong about Linux and give you a 879568719 step procedure that'll get you one step closer to doing the thing/fixing the problem that would be a one-click operation in a good OS.
-
@hungrier said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
This will get every Linux user
No
-
@hungrier Compare this with mac, where asking how to turn the light off, proverbially speaking, will get the fanboys tripping all over themselves to extol the virtues of sleeping with the lights on.
-
@PleegWat We can also compare this with Windows who will helpfully turn off your lights as soon as it gets dark outside, because the dark hours are for sleeping only.
-
@Atazhaia said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@PleegWat We can also compare this with Windows who will helpfully turn off your
lightspower as soon as it gets dark outside, because the dark hours are for sleeping only.FTFY
-
@Atazhaia windows certified online bulb support expert: "Hi, please try taking the bulb out and putting it back in. If that doesn't work, try demolishing the house and rebuilding it. Thanks"
-
@hungrier said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Atazhaia said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@PleegWat We can also compare this with Windows who will helpfully turn off your
lightspowercomputer, update and reboot as soon as it gets dark outside, because the dark hours are for sleeping only.FTFY
FurtherFTFY
-
@Zecc said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@hungrier said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Atazhaia said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@PleegWat We can also compare this with Windows who will helpfully turn off your
lightspowercomputer, update and reboot as soon as it gets dark outside, because the dark hours are forsleepingupdating Windows only.FTFY
FurtherFTFY
EvenMoreFTFY
-
@dkf said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Zecc said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@hungrier said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Atazhaia said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@PleegWat We can also compare this with Windows who will helpfully turn off your
lightspowercomputer, update and reboot as soon as it gets dark outside, because the dark hours are forsleepingupdating Windows only.FTFY
FurtherFTFY
EvenMoreFTFY
Error: Intersecting Parallels Detected.
-
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
If every electronic device had a public specification of all its input and output interfaces, that would be a real blessing for the Linux world (and all other non-mainstream platforms), and I don't see any major downsides to that.
For users? None.
For companies:
- Requires additional work (writing public specifications takes time)
- Removes flexibility (if you have a public spec, it's harder to change things later, or fix hardware bugs with software patches)
- Encourages users to use non-official software, which makes support more painful
- Makes reverse-engineering/cloning easier for competitors
- In some cases, exposes ways of breaking the hardware permanently (by accident, or as part of an attack)
Not really worth the trouble when it's only wanted by a few percents (at most) of your consumer base, and they won't pay extra for it.
-
@anonymous234 said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@xaade said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
It's immoral to ask for money for your work?
How do these guys buy food?
No, you see, you can still sell GPL software so it's OK! I mean people will download it for free from someone else so you'll probably only sell one copy. But you can make money selling support!
Seriously though. That's the main problem with free software. Yes, freedom is nice and all, but what about getting paid to do stuff? Do we just give up on the idea that works everywhere else? They always deflect by pointing out you can still sell support contracts or whatever alternate business model you can come up with, but those are just bad workarounds.
If I cared enough about freedom, I'd start a "free as in freedom but not as in beer" movement where you pay for a license but still get the source code and permission to modify it for your own uses.
Twitch has shown us that "pay what you want" is actually sustainable.
-
@anonymous234 said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
If I cared enough about freedom, I'd start a "free as in freedom but not as in beer" movement where you pay for a license but still get the source code and permission to modify it for your own uses.
As in the way Linux distributions worked 15–20 years ago?
You bought a big package of software that you could also all get for free, if you cared enough to hunt it all down and make it all work. Me, I happily paid for somebody else to do that for me so that I could get a box with CD-/DVD-ROMs and a (thick) manual from a shop.
-
@hungrier said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
given the fact that most install fests quietly play the role of the devil, I think that an explicit devil would be less bad. It would convert the install-fest dilemma from a debilitating contradiction into a teaching experience.
Yes, it will teach people to use a different operating system that will let them use all of their computer’s and peripherals’ capabilities without having to deal with self-righteous Linux geeks.
I have no problem at all with using Linux, but I would like its proponents to be more … well, helpful when I’m trying to troubleshoot a problem.
If you need help with Linux you have to know how to ask the right way.
Wrong: How do I [do something] in Linux?
Wrong: I'm having trouble with [some problem]
This will get you nowhere. Someone will call you a nub and tell you to RTFM.That’s not been my experience. My experience is that every time I’ve tried asking questions on a Linux support/help forum, I’ve gotten no responses at all.
-
@Gurth And when you asked here, you got help
-
@TimeBandit Which proves that this isn’t a Linux support/help forum. It also proves that despite the initial impression this forum gives, not everyone on here is a self-righteous arsehole :)
-
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Which proves that this isn’t a Linux support/help forum
Toby Fair, I never asked anything in a Linux forum, so I can't comment
-
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
not everyone on here is a self-righteous arsehole :)
Sure. Some are self-lefteous ones, just to be different.
-
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
not everyone on here is a self-righteous arsehole :)
Correct. On occasion I'm a fucking asshole. Completely different!
-
@Zerosquare said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
If every electronic device had a public specification of all its input and output interfaces, that would be a real blessing for the Linux world (and all other non-mainstream platforms), and I don't see any major downsides to that.
For users? None.
For companies:
- Requires additional work (writing public specifications takes time)
You know what else takes time? Processing warranty claims. Get rid of that too!
- Removes flexibility (if you have a public spec, it's harder to change things later, or fix hardware bugs with software patches)
Do you publish specs before the hardware hits the market? If so, you should stop. If not, what's the problem? Each hardware revision gets its own spec. It's not like it doesn't already happens anyway, even though it's all mostly internal. And you can keep your patches in software too. I'm talking about publishing specs, not having a lifelong obligation to make your hardware perform the best it can in every situation.
- Encourages users to use non-official software, which makes support more painful
And warranty laws encourage making warranty claims, which also makes support more painful. Get rid of that too!
- Makes reverse-engineering/cloning easier for competitors
That's why I said specification of interfaces. Sure, it does make RE easier, just like every piece of information you have about the device at all, but I don't think knowing interfaces alone would change much, especially since drivers can be REd too. And all the interesting bits are freely available in patents anyway.
- In some cases, exposes ways of breaking the hardware permanently (by accident, or as part of an attack)
And there's about as much bad in it as there's good - being public means the good guys are much more likely to stumble upon these bugs, making the customers aware of them, and that can save them some serious money.
Not really worth the trouble when it's only wanted by a few percents (at most) of your consumer base, and they won't pay extra for it.
There's a reason why consumer rights are encoded in laws. If you asked Polish people in 1989 about 6 month hidden defect warranty, a vast majority wouldn't care either.
-
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
You know what else takes time? Processing warranty claims. Get rid of that too!
And warranty laws encourage making warranty claims, which also makes support more painful. Get rid of that too!That's different. Warranties are required by laws, and customers expect them. Specifications are not, and the vast majority of users don't care.
what's the problem? Each hardware revision gets its own spec. It's not like it doesn't already happens anyway, even though it's all mostly internal. And you can keep your patches in software too. I'm talking about publishing specs, not having a lifelong obligation to make your hardware perform the best it can in every situation.
It doesn't work that way in reality. If you publicly document something, people expect some level of stability and support, even if you put disclaimers. And they will complain when their third-party driver or app breaks because of a specification change.
Raymond Chen's blog (yes, again) has plenty of examples of things MS won't change in Windows because it would break third-party apps and anger customers, even when those things were just side-effects of a particular implementation or undocumented internal details (i.e. "should never have been relied upon in the first place").That's why I said specification of interfaces.
I think you have an idealized view of how hardware and drivers interact. Quite often, interfaces between the two are not nice and clean, because abstraction would make things painful or slower. Some products also have lots of important stuff implemented partially or completely in driver software (a typical example is video cards: drivers have a big impact on performance and features). Documenting the interfaces can give helpful hints on the underlying implementation, so much that nVidia tried to obfuscate their open-source drivers a few years ago.
Sure, it does make RE easier, just like every piece of information you have about the device at all, but I don't think knowing interfaces alone would change much, especially since drivers can be REd too.
Everything can be (and is) REd, but having even incomplete documentation is a big bonus. For the same reason, closed-source software isn't usually shipped with debug symbols included, or even the details of proprietary file formats used.
And all the interesting bits are freely available in patents anyway.
This is one reason why not everything interesting is patented (the other reason is that filing and keeping a patent has a non-negligible cost).
And there's about as much bad in it as there's good - being public means the good guys are much more likely to stumble upon these bugs, making the customers aware of them, and that can save them some serious money.
I'm not talking about security issues that can be fixed.
I'm talking about stuff that can brick hardware if misused (voltage and thermal controls, persistent memory storage...). Stuff that is known from the start to be potentially dangerous.
If you document that, and a buggy third-party driver or malware causes a wave of hardware failures, you either spend a lot of money replacing devices, or have to handle a lot of angry customers. Potentially both.@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
There's a reason why consumer rights are encoded in laws. If you asked Polish people in 1989 about 6 month hidden defect warranty, a vast majority wouldn't care either.
I get your point, and as a user, I'd love to have specifications for every piece of electronics I buy.
But as a hardware designer, I can tell you why it's a lot more complicated that "those bastard companies just don't want to send us their PDF docs".
-
@Gurth Did you pay $139? That's how much people pay for Windows. Autocad costs $1,610/year. Think they'll make the same amount with any other of those business models?
Again, you can make some money but not the same money you make when you can sell something. And if it's not directly linked to the product, there's less incentive to improve the product.If restaurants didn't exist, people would probably still pay to have a place to sit in and eat their own lunch they brought from home, but you wouldn't go online and defend that "no one needs to sell food, people already pay for the table".
-
@Zerosquare said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
You know what else takes time? Processing warranty claims. Get rid of that too!
And warranty laws encourage making warranty claims, which also makes support more painful. Get rid of that too!That's different. Warranties are required by laws, and customers expect them. Specifications are not, and the vast majority of users don't care.
Remember that once upon a time, those laws weren't laws. And it was just as unfair to deny replacement/repair of broken product back then as it is now. But one day, poof, and suddenly it's a law. It would be nice if this other thing also found a way one day into a law, for the same reason why mandatory warranty did - because it's unfair to customers.
what's the problem? Each hardware revision gets its own spec. It's not like it doesn't already happens anyway, even though it's all mostly internal. And you can keep your patches in software too. I'm talking about publishing specs, not having a lifelong obligation to make your hardware perform the best it can in every situation.
It doesn't work that way in reality. If you publicly document something, people expect some level of stability and support, even if you put disclaimers. And they will complain when their third-party driver or app breaks because of a specification change.
Raymond Chen's blog (yes, again) has plenty of examples of things MS won't change in Windows because it would break third-party apps and anger customers, even when those things were just side-effects of a particular implementation or undocumented internal details (i.e. "should never have been relied upon in the first place").That's why I said specification of interfaces.
I think you have an idealized view of how hardware and drivers interact.
No, I know very well how it looks like. I just don't believe the entire functionality (at the hardware level - logic gates and internal subcomponents) can be extracted from interfaces alone. No matter how coupled the interface is with the implementation.
Some products also have lots of important stuff implemented partially or completely in driver software (a typical example is video cards: drivers have a big impact on performance and features). Documenting the interfaces can give helpful hints on the underlying implementation, so much that nVidia tried to obfuscate their open-source drivers a few years ago.
On one hand, yes, this kinda sucks. On the other, you have patents.
Sure, it does make RE easier, just like every piece of information you have about the device at all, but I don't think knowing interfaces alone would change much, especially since drivers can be REd too.
Everything can be (and is) REd, but having even incomplete documentation is a big bonus. For the same reason, closed-source software isn't usually shipped with debug symbols included, or even the details of proprietary file formats used.
Fun fact: debug symbols for Windows can be downloaded for free from MS website. Also, debug symbols are much, much, much, much, much more than just interfaces - as they give you a full breakdown of all software layers down to very bottom. That's not something I was talking about.
And all the interesting bits are freely available in patents anyway.
This is one reason why not everything interesting is patented
A.k.a. hoarding the knowledge and not letting anyone in so you can milk every cent out of your inventions for eternity (note: obvious hyperbole). I don't really think it would be a bad thing to discourage this behavior.
(the other reason is that filing and keeping a patent has a non-negligible cost).
Companies that are in business of making innovative hardware are usually the kind that can cover the cost without much problem.
And there's about as much bad in it as there's good - being public means the good guys are much more likely to stumble upon these bugs, making the customers aware of them, and that can save them some serious money.
I'm not talking about security issues that can be fixed.
I'm talking about stuff that can brick hardware if misused (voltage and thermal controls, persistent memory storage...). Stuff that is known from the start to be potentially dangerous.I mean, it's not like you need documentation to apply incorrect voltage...
If you document that, and a buggy third-party driver or malware causes a wave of hardware failures, you either spend a lot of money replacing devices, or have to handle a lot of angry customers. Potentially both.
Fuck. Forgot about the people part of the equation.
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
There's a reason why consumer rights are encoded in laws. If you asked Polish people in 1989 about 6 month hidden defect warranty, a vast majority wouldn't care either.
I get your point, and as a user, I'd love to have specifications for every piece of electronics I buy.
But as a hardware designer, I can tell you why it's a lot more complicated that "those bastard companies just don't want to send us their PDF docs".I realize it's complicated subject. Nearly everything is a complicated subject. Double so in technology. But I still believe the potential benefits to the society would outweigh the costs.
-
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I just don't believe the entire functionality (at the hardware level - logic gates and internal subcomponents) can be extracted from interfaces alone.
It's not all or nothing. Sure, you can get much more info by putting a chip under a scanning electron microscope, but it is very expensive and analyzing the data requires a huge amount of work. Interfaces only give you a part of the puzzle, but it's a way easier attack vector. And abstraction leakage (which is hard to avoid) is actually helpful for this.
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
On one hand, yes, this kinda sucks. On the other, you have patents.
Patents aren't such a good solution for this:
- If most key patents for a kind of technology are owned by a single company, then you get a monopoly. That's not good for the consumers, and not good for competition either.
- If they're held by different companies, each company has to reinvent the wheel not to infringe the patents they don't have. If they succeed, this wastes time and money ; if they don't, their product is worse than it could have been. Everyone loses.
Even if you have a patent, patents disputes are long, expensive and the result depends a lot on how good your lawyers are. Not to mention certain countries don't care that much about patents anyways. So not revealing all of your "secrets" makes sense.
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I realize it's complicated subject. Nearly everything is a complicated subject. Double so in technology. But I still believe the potential benefits to the society would outweigh the costs.
Lots of things look good for society on paper. That doesn't mean they actually work fine in reality. Remember that if such a law was passed, it would not only affect big companies, but every single one of them. Except prices to increase, and products being cancelled because it would be considered "not worth it".
Install Fests - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
