On 03/06/2015 18:41, hellekin wrote:
> *** I must I was almost agreeing until "moralistic crap". This is
> your opinion, and in my own, an unfounded one. What we're talking
> about here is about technology, not moralistic anything.
>
> The technology we're building is one that empowers the user, and it
> is arguable whether considering the imposition of
> freedom-restricting technology empowers the use or not. The case is
> hardware that the user buys and that refuses to work without secret
> code from the company.

Well, when the user buys such a piece of hardware, he is *already*
disempowered. If he (gender chosen by flipping a coin) is technical
enough to perform the Devuan driver installation, chances are he already
knows the kind of hardware he has; and what he now wants is to get the
damn thing working, not get blamed because his hardware sucks. He knows.
He's probably not the decision-maker - think technical people in
companies. He probably did not vote for that hardware but got overruled.
Adding insult to injury by lecturing him is unnecessarily aggravating.

There is a place and time for everything, including freedom advocacy.
I am all for advocating the use of decent hardware and for throwing
locked in crap into the garbage can. I wish hardware manufacturers
would understand the benefits of open specifications. I wholeheartedly
support advocacy campaigns, including naming and shaming the worst
hardware offenders.
But machine installation is not the time for advocacy. The decision
has already been made, and at that point, telling users that it sucks
isn't going to help anyone, it's just going to make the distribution
look bad.

--
Laurent