I just want to control my computer

that has nothing to do with DRM... learn a programming language

DRM is a system designed to prevent users from controlling their computer. DRM has everything to do with control.

there's nothing stopping people from using or downloading DRM-protected content... if you do it legally

Actually, there is. You must (a) run their software to do it (technical restriction), and (b) agree to a contract (legal restriction). "Use" is essentially defined by whoever wrote the software. The content is crippled so only one or a few programs can run it. And you can download a DRM'd file, but that would be useless on its own. The system that plays it could easily refuse to play it.

if you have a problem with that, it's pretty obvious that your preference is to download content illegally

No I don't. And you should also remember that fair use and fair dealing are legitimate uses of content which DRM inherently prevents.

I wouldn't create a program and not release the binary without the source code

that would be your choice, not the user's

Sure, but I think users should choose to only use free (-as in freedom) software.

the programmer/artist/musician/tv studio should have the choice whether to release their intellectual property freely or not...

I think I should be able to control my computer. I don't think a media company should be able to command my computer.

By "intellectual property" I would assume you are talking about a potentially copyrighted work, since "IP" is an umbrella for lots of other laws. Keep in mind that public domain works can be crippled with DRM as well, not just "IP".

but you don't own whatever content is secured by DRM

I don't want ownership of any content. I just want to control my computer.

if you don't like DRM content, don't use it... nobody is holding a gun to your head

Sure, I don't. And I don't think anyone else should use it either. DRM is anti-social and an oppressive use of computers.

i know the open source movement allows the use of code for free, but that is the choice of the developers.

Maybe it is, but I don't think it should be that way. And I don't think the W3C should help those types of developers either.

how would you feel if you spent your time developing a program and your users simply demanded the source code because they think any kind of digital rights management sucks ass?

I wouldn't create a program and not release the binary without the source code. If I was the user, I wouldn't make "demands" either. I would just recommend that other users avoid the program.

It's going to keep the existing PC DRM solutions (Flash and Silverlight) alive and competing with HTML5 for a long time.

People are still using them? I stopped a few years ago and I haven't run into many problems.

Hmm... maybe this is why Microsoft is shipping Flash by default in Windows 8.

Suppose a user sends me a threatening message on some site online. With DRM I can't save it. Suppose I want to save a video so I can play it later (maybe I need to play it offline for my assignment work). Again, if it's DRM'd I can't do that. I don't want my computer to work against me, and I don't think that should be a "standard".

Perhaps the better question is why should DRM be a standard? Why should computers disobey their owners for the sake of corporate greed? Why do media companies pretend that the world will end if DRM isn't added to HTML5?

It might also help to read what media companies have proposed for HTML5 DRM. The BBC wants to be able to take legal action against anyone that bypasses the DRM (even if the user isn't infringing copyright itself).

In Linux-land "blob" normally refers to proprietary firmware.

When it comes to 3D support, Intel and nouveau provide free drivers and firmware for many cards. AMD/ATI users are often out of luck though. I believe nouveau in Linux 3.8 brings 3D support to even more NVIDIA users than previously.

When it comes to firmware, the main area which Linux-libre lacks support in is for wireless cards. But luckily compatible wireless cards come cheap these days, in both PCI-e and USB forms. I recently bought an Atheros card for my laptop for < $20 and it works fine with Trisquel.

Trisquel doesn't stop proprietary software from running. You can set it to use PPAs or the Ubuntu repositories if you want.

However, they don't exactly support or recommend doing that. The Trisquel package repos are only supposed to contain free software as well.

Trisquel re-syncs with Ubuntu, using scripts to remove all the proprietary parts. Read about it here: How Trisquel Is Made.

There probably isn't really any reason to use Hurd, since Linux-libre is completely free anyway. But who knows, maybe Trisquel will change in the future...

And the culprit here is... cloud computing (or clown computing). It's absurd that you have to give up your identity to download software in the first place. Because Google is in charge of the data, they can do what they want.

I'm sure now that it's been pointed out they will fix it, to keep the users happy. But that's besides the point. None of those users gave their own data to the developers. Users deserve better!

I'm guessing there are a lot of pelicans who, if they could talk, would be praising the use of the dispersants.

Perhaps not, there's some research that could suggest that the dispersants could have made the disaster worse.

There's always a line of people who are salivating to second-guess whatever decision gets made.

So we shouldn't be testing these things and being critical of how disasters are handled? That's how progress is made, and how we can improve for the next time it happens.

Aaron Swartz was facing allegations of computer hacking. He may have trespassed, but changing a MAC address is hardly hacking.

It's like getting banned on Slashdot, and then registering a new user name. Except with MAC addresses. If what Aaron Swartz did was hacking, thousands of Slashdot users just became criminals.

Maybe you think freedom doesn't matter. But would you say software works well if its inner workings are hidden from view and bundled with legal restrictions?

Non-free drivers can be abandoned at any time. That's basically what they did with their nv driver. We are talking about nVidia here.

Different definition of "free" actually. I guessed the title would have given away.

I meant "free software" (sometimes called "open source") not freeware.

Microsoft won't allow free YouTube player replacements in their app store so they are basically losing at their own game. I would say that it serves Microsoft right, but unfortunately it's the end users that suffer.

In fact, I don't think microsoft bans having other keys besides their key in the bios by default.

Windows RT has Restricted Boot on it.

The article confuses Secure Boot and Restricted Boot. The linked FSF page clearly explains the difference.

The only "issue" is how to manage the certs.

Correct, and that's why the FSF is opposing Restricted Boot, not Secure Boot.