[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

purism why does fsf and libreplanet embrace a misleading company?

From: a
Subject: purism why does fsf and libreplanet embrace a misleading company?
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 11:07:23 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0

On 3/12/20 5:25 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 2020-03-11 14:33, a via libreplanet-discuss wrote:
>> My post is about getting official comments from
>> libreplanet and fsf. Of course anybody can
>> reply, but I already know how people attempt
>> to defend purism's behavior.
>> On 3/11/20 8:48 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> If I understand you correctly, you believe: Purism marketing talks about
>>> software freedom and the goal of RYF 100% free hardware, but they don't
>>> deliver to that level, and they minimize or hide the details. You worry
>>> that people buy Purism products believing they are getting more complete
>>> freedom than they actually receive. You doubt Purism's good faith, and
>>> because you feel FSF should be skeptical rather than gracious about
>>> these concerns, FSF is making a mistake by giving Purism a platform or
>>> acknowledgment (at least without some explicit qualifiers from FSF about
>>> these concerns). Is that right?
>> Correct.
>>> I agree with you that marketing claims should not mislead people about
>>> the facts of products. Stating a goal of reaching some standard is not
>>> the same as already being there, and the difference should be plain and
>>> transparent.
>> Correct.
>>> I don't find your jump to speculating about bad faith at all warranted.
>>> There's no evidence that FSF is corrupted in any way around this. And
>>> there's inadequate (though perhaps non-zero) evidence that Purism has
>>> any bad faith.
>> educate yourself.
>> About purism they claimed about their notebooks that
>> there was a real possibility that intel would publish
>> the software in question. Everybody in the field
>> know, intel does not publish such
>> pieces of source software.
>> purism claimed reverse engineering was an option. The
>> software in question is signed. Name a cryptographer who will
>> agree, that breaking the cryptography is an option?
>> As I said, one email to libreboot would have been enough.
>> Also after people told purism that their claims were
>> unfounded, purism did not rectify their websites.
>> It is swindle if you deceive people in order to gain
>> money.
>> About fsf.
>> fsf is known to be strict and harsh in matters of free
>> software. It is a mystery why fsf has acted that amateurishly
>> about purism. That is why I ask, has fsf received money
>> or hardware from purism? Are there people who at the
>> same time represent both fsf and purism?
>>> In general, you're more likely to learn and also to get others to listen
>>> when you express concerns from a position of genuine curiosity without
>>> hints of accusations and other attacks.
>> You do realize I have stated arguments? You have not. A
>> pattern I have noticed from other defenders of purism.
>> fsf has been informed by me and maybe others, how
>> purism has acted. It makes fsf an accessory in
>> purism's fraud. fsf failure on this matter results in loss of
>> credibility among those who are able to look behind
>> purism's deceptions.
>>> It can also help to try to create a *strong-man* argument. Generate the
>>> strongest argument you can for a defense of Purism and FSF, and then see
>>> if that holds up to scrutiny. That's much more insightful than
>>> generating weak or straw-man arguments or speculative suspicions.
>> Start rebut my arguments.
> I made no arguments because I don't have a position on this, I don't
> know that you are are, and I wasn't defending Purism.
> What I did was demonstrate a more effective way of communicating by
> verifying if I understood, describing where I agree, and offering
> feedback. All I'm saying is that you are inherently likely to be read
> dismissively with the style of posting you used. Style has no relation
> to accuracy. Someone can have effective style and be wrong or have lousy
> style and be right. But people won't listen to badly-communicated ideas
> that are still right.
> To avoid dismissal by others, I suggest you state the clear facts
> distinctly from the accusations and stories. You already did better in
> your reply to me. But for further clarification, something like this:
> "Purism claimed working toward X, but X is effectively impossible.
> The suspicion I have is that they are not acting in good faith.
> FSF let them present at LibrePlanet. The story in my mind is: FSF should
> have independently recognized the concerns I have and not trust Purism
> to be acting in good faith."
> I don't know if your suspicions are valid or not. All I know is that the
> type of animosity I've seen toward Purism has resulted in posts
> attacking them with language that assumes bad faith rather than posts
> that lead me to share that conclusion. There's a spectrum from misguided
> good faith to all-out bad faith. I don't have enough evidence to convict
> Purism of bad faith, even though I can accept the criticism of some of
> their marketing.

Attachment: pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]