If Slashdot wants to promote and help EFF, they should stop censoring users from reading news on their own website.

At the moment, many attempts to access Slashdot via Tor give a blocked IP address message. So many Tor users can't read Slashdot at all.

I might be a little bit sympathetic if Slashdot temporarily banned IPs from posting when abuse is detected, but it's a real shame that IPs blocked by Slashdot can't read the news at all.

From Ars Technica:

"One of the design documents that they volunteered specifically called out compelling a [certificate authority] in the jurisdiction of the UAE or Saudi Arabia to produce SSL certificates that they could use for interception," Marlinspike wrote in a blog post.

Clearly there is something wrong with the public key infrastructure on the web.

We're at Firefox 20 and Debian has only version 10.

From the Debian perspective there was only Firefox 10 ESR and Firefox 17 ESR. Since the freeze was made before 17 was released, version 10 was included.

Windows RT is worse than Windows 8 because it doesn't give its users the freedom to boot another OS, or control the computer at its very lowest level. Sure, maybe most users don't care, but they should. If tech-savvy users boycott the Surface RT, maybe users will as well.

I can't yet see any reason for not allowing users to control their own device at its lowest level. Maybe an "unlock" option like a few Android phones do would prevent users from making unwise decisions.

I feel like I had to say something, because many of the comments here are aimed at the technical qualities of the Windows RT/iPad/other proprietary OS. This is missing the point! If people aren't adopting Windows RT at the moment, let's tell them why they should avoid it forever.

Also, I believe the FSF's petition to stop Restricted Boot is still open. Please take a moment to sign it if you have the time - it's getting close to 50,000 signatures.

-- some crazy free software user.

i think the whole point of this is that it shifts control from the companies you despise to the W3C, which is less dispicable

The proposed standard is designed as infrastructure to give power to despicable companies.

some people do want access to DRM protected content

Some people want access to content and will do just about anything to get it. That doesn't mean they want DRM itself.

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...