yeh, coz I have that much time for educating you.

Thanks for the link. I've noted it in the wiki that FSF hosts:

http://libreplanet.org/wiki/When_should_firmware_be_free#Hard_drive_controllers

I don't know if anyone from FSF reads that page, but I'll gather info and I'll raise it with someone in FSF next time I'm talking to them.

(Of course, this isn't the case with the drive of the laptop that FSF has endorsed.)

It's not new. I've been reading about it for 15 years.

Thanks for putting an accurate title on your comment.

> Oh, so if one isn't a programmer they shouldn't criticize

That's what *you* said. I'm just turning it around so you can see how silly it is. And you find it silly indeed.

I had pointed out all the non-programmer work done by FSF and you replied that the real people we should thank for GNOME are coder Miguel de Icaza and dotcom startup Eazel.

You said RMS could only take credit for the tools he wrote, but that's nonsense. He's been doing non-programmer work full-time for about twenty years now. Including launching four desktop projects and doing everything he can to make them a success. And with GNOME he did.

GNOME Foundation came years after GNOME. GNU started GNOME.

GNU has more than a hundred successful software projects. Some are cornerstones of the operating system, and you're moaning because there are some GNU projects which haven't been successful. And how are your microkernel and your Flash replacement coming along? Written any good compilers or standard c libraries recently?

GNOME was launched by FSF and RMS spent years promoting it and getting people to work on it. He still does.

You seem to be trying to make GNU disappear by arguing that nothing matters but lines of code, and only the lines written by RMS's hands count as GNU.

The toolkit is a GNU project, born from another GNU project.

Miguel de Icaza was one developer and software architect. He did years of good work and then gave up and took money to promote Microsoft software (via Novell).

> And none of those things were done by the FSF itself.

We have a GUI desktop because FSF launched four projects to make one.

The first became GNUstep (a success, but not enoughso), the second didn't produce a desktop but did produce Guile.

Then KDE was launched, with the then-proprietary QT toolkit. The problem was so urgent that FSF launched two projects to fix it, GNOME and Harmony. Harmony was a project to replace the QT toolkit, but it wasn't a success.

GNOME was a success. So much of a success that it was, IMO, what lead to QT being freed. So we've FSF to thank for directly making GNOME, and indirectly for licence changes in QT.

(And then there's the fact that FSF made the developer tools and licences which helped a lot of other projects come into being.)

But as usual, people try to avoid crediting FSF, so a lot of people don't know this.

> I'd take issue with them nominating themselves as the one true source

Who else would you trust? Their self-nomination only works because it's not really contested. Even if some support is given begrudgingly, and not everyone likes every campaign or press release, there is general acceptance that their motives are pure.

But more importantly, I don't think there's reason to be so pessimistic. In 1995 they said we'd never have a decent GUI desktop. In 1997, they said we'd never have a free web browser. Then they said we'd never have a free office suite. Then they said we'd never have specialised applications like video editors...

The trend I see, is that we keep surprising ourselves with how far we're getting. There's room for optimism here!

So I've got one person replying to me saying FSF is too "fundamentalist", and I've got you saying they're too lax and are letting too much slip through.

The general theme is that some people will look for even the smallest error just to avoid acknowledging good work.

Why do I say "probably" in my previous post? Because you and I don't know what the firmware in our microwaves do. It's probably fine. There haven't been any big microwave firmware scandals that I'm aware of. (And if I didn't say "probably", you'd say "How can you know?!")

Regarding FSF's statement, they said "no proprietary firmware options". Options. Whatever firmware could be removed has been removed.

Is the HDD firmware a problem? I don't know. I don't know personally, and I don't know what FSF's take on it is.

But even if you did find some flaw, the right thing to do is say "Well, FSF is definitely 95%, and well done to them for their effort, but I'd like some discussion on this other 5%".

haha, someone modded my two comments down because they disagree.

I guess they want FSF to do everything and hand it to them on a plate, free, user-friendly, zero cost.

> Is the harddrive running open-source firmware too?

A disingenuous double attack.

First: "Since I can't be perfect, why should I make any effort at all?"

Second: "FSF is has compromised! that makes them insincere"

The answer is that no, the hd firmware isn't open. Like the firmware of a microwave or common wristwatch, it's probably impossible to put new firmware on it, and it's probably not a problem.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, so FSF's line is: if the software (including firmware) can be updated, it must be free. The philosophy is that if it's complex or important, then the vendor will create a way to update the firmware. If the firmware can't be updated, then the code is probably sufficiently mundane as to be ignored, just as circuits are ignored.

> no understanding of the importances of "just works"

That's not their part of the job.

Various entities can label something as user-friendly. FSF is pretty much the only entity that can label stuff as free.

This is one laptop. Hopefully next year there'll be twenty, and then someone can take on the job of announcing which is the most user-friendly of the twenty free laptops.

Need: freezer, plastic tubs, big pot.

I fill a five or a seven litre pot with loads of veg, spuds, a few steaks. Boil for half an hour, turn to pulp with a hand blender, and voilÃ:

http://ciaran.compsoc.com/vegetable-soup.html (scroll down for pics)

Or a few kilos of tomatoes, minced meat, carrots and red peppers, and that's spaghetti bolognaise (just add spaghetti).

Or spuds, carrots, leaks, onions, and two or three whole chickens.

Onions, garlic, and broccoli get added to pretty much everything.

All goes into tubs, into the freezer. Take out two tubs each night to thaw.

Point is, I spend a day cooking and I eat clean, non-processed food every day for a month.

A lot of people seeing this sort of case ask a question like: can Google really decide where lawsuits must be filed?

I don't know the law about this in England, but in Belgium it seems the answer is: if the judge finds it not to be abusive.

In a case like this, where the "injured" party is financially small and the amount of damages per injured party will also be small, I wouldn't be surprised if Google's clause was found inapplicable.

But as I said, I don't know the relevant law in England. Just saying that besides yes and no, the answer could also be "it depends".