Most FSF guys actually have very nuanced views on the topic and you’re doing everyone a disservice by reducing it to an extremist sound bite.

▲

jjmarr 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That's literally the official FSF position.

https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

> For example: the Free Software Foundation only purchases desktop machines which support Libreboot, and Thinkpad X200 and X60 laptops with Libreboot. All desktops and servers we buy are KGPE-D16 motherboards, which are supported by Libreboot. As a result, all of the workstations used by the FSF staff have a free BIOS.

https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

> Except where noted, all of the distributions listed on this page fail to follow the guidelines in at least two important ways:

> ...The kernel that they distribute (in most cases, Linux) includes “blobs”: pieces of object code distributed without source, usually firmware to run some device.

They are extreme, uncompromising, and live by their principles.

They are also the reason you can buy a computer meeting those requirements instead of being a pipe dream.

▲

ffsm8 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thankfully he didn't say that they're all like that. Instead he pointed out the few that are as a well known example of similar behavior.

If you reread the comment with a fresh mind you'll notice that you misunderstood what he wrote

▲

citadel_melon an hour ago | parent [-]

When attacking archetypes of people, there is some responsibility to make clear who you’re attacking and why, even to someone who’s not being hyper-open-minded. At least if you want them to learn from you: which may or may not be your goal. When you attack/signal you’re on the offensive, it is foolish to believe that they won’t knee-jerk attack back and become closed minded at least a little.

Regardless, the “misinterpretation” of the parent comment is actually a plausible interpretation. I suspend my judgement on what the actual “correct” interpretation of the original comment is: there are too many plausible interpretations to deductively decide. But I do know that since they first comment brought up a contentious issue, they should have put more work into crafting their message so there aren’t so many plausible interpretations that are contradictory. Or alternatively, they should have specified more precisely who they were talking about without a shadow of a doubt. That is if the commenter cared to be properly interpreted, but that may not be their goal. There are many reasonable reasons why that wouldn’t be their goal.

	▲	morgoo 26 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You used a lot of words to defend a strawman argument
	▲	verve_rat 27 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		When you read someone's comment there is some responsibility to read the words they wrote and not attempt to attack them for an argument no reasonable person would extract from those words.
	▲	NamlchakKhandro 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Angry girlfriend SMS essay

▲

charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is the FSF itself who has these extremist views.