Free software, free society: Richard Stallman at TEDxGeneva 2014

>> Microsoft keeps adding stuff into Windows we don't want Of course they are. Copilot and Recall are not what most users want, but they are what Microsoft wants: ▶ this video

>> Your computer didn’t do what you expected it to. Hell, you’re very justified to go beyond that and say that it behaved in a way that it shouldn’t. It did exactly what it was programmed to do. It was not a malfunction, it was intentional: ▶ this video

>> the more relevant point is that it already is my phone. I paid Apple for it. Why can't I install anything I want on it? Because Apple controls your phone: ▶ this video

It is doing what it was programmed to do: ▶ this video Sadly, this kind of user-hostile behavior is increasingly common and a form of enshitification (see link ) of the operating system.

"If your computer can’t lie to other computers, then it’s not yours." This fundamentally comes down to "do you really control your computer, or does someone else?": ▶ this video

The four freedoms that free software guarantee are essential for people to be in control of their own computing. Are you in control of your computer, or does your computer control you? ▶ this video People get angry and frustrated when a big tech company makes a decision that is user-hostile, but benefits the tech company's profits. This is to be expected because in almost all cases, the big tech company has no obligation other than to maximize profits. The four freedoms help to put a check on the power of big tech companies by providing alternatives that keep power in the hands of the user. That does not mean that free software and big tech companies cannot coexist or even thrive together. Red Hat was built on free software. System76 sells hardware that runs mostly free software.

Windows is closed source, full of ads and telemetry, and increasingly user hostile. MacOS is a mostly closed source, expensive, user-condescending walled garden. Linux, BSDs, and free / open source operating systems give the user freedom and control over their computing experience: ▶ this video

This is remarkably good, both the (I assume) human-generated slides and text and the computer-generated voice. Here's the original, I think: ▶ this video

"Intel's upcoming Intel's 4th Generation Xeon Scalable Sapphire Rapids processors are equipped with various special-purpose accelerators and security technologies that all customers do not need at all times. To offer such end-users additional flexibility regarding investments, Intel will deliver them to buy its CPUs with those capabilities disabled but turn them on if they are needed at some point. The Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) technology will also allow Intel to sell fewer CPU models and then enable its clients or partners to activate certain features if needed (to use them on-prem or offer them as a service)." Apparently Intel believes that subscription-driven microprocessors will be a great revenue stream. It's not your processor if they control the firmware: ▶ this video You can pay a subscription fee to access features that they own. I will not be buying any new Intel processors.

It's not fully "your vehicle" if they control the software: ▶ this video You can pay a recurring subscription fee to access features that they own.

>> Digital assistants do not exist to serve you or your interests. You should assume that your every interaction with one will be exploited in some way for someone else's benefit, or leaked and/or sold to some third party without your knowledge, or both. Correct. Siri is Apple's tool, not yours despite appearences: ▶ this video

Microsoft is showing that they are really the ones who are in control. "Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users": ▶ this video

Microsoft is showing that they are really the ones who are in control. "Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users": ▶ this video

"Who controls your computer? Is it you?" "Either the user controls the software, or the software controls the users": ▶ this video

>> if Microsoft were to ban my account [1], could they then stop me from opening my backup files on a new machine, even if I made a new account? If your documents are tagged with the banned account info, it certainly seems possible. It seems like a really dirty thing to do, but there are lots of HN users who are against the Microsoft account requirement for Windows 11: link Possible issues like these are one reason why free and open source software exist: ▶ this video

As Richard Stallman puts it "either the user controls the program or the program controls the user." ▶ this video

Apple may sell you a computer, but ultimately you do not control it. Who really controls your computer: ▶ this video

Sounds very frustrating. I don't use Windows on any of the computers I own. I prefer to have more control over my computer so I use Linux. I still have to use Windows at work, but I don't admin those machines so I don't have a lot of control / choice in the matter. Food for thought about who controls your computer: ▶ this video

You and all of the "Free Software" world have different definitions on free. I'd recommend this[1] talk by Richard Stallman, it's pretty basic, but it gets the idea across well. [1] ▶ this video

"Open Source" terminology emphasizes its technical superiority as a development method. "Free Software" terminology emphasizes its ethical necessity to maintain a free society. One is technical, one is political/ideological. Open source advocates don't care about politics, Free software advocates think technical superiority is unimportant in a non-free society. Stallman's own words on this distinction in this video: ▶ this video