On Tuesday 23. August 2016 20.34.19 Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
[Levels of criticism of well-meaning projects...]
In some case it's been more constructive than others. Funny thing is that when an evil corporation launches another evil product, you can hardly hear some boohs somewhere, not because everybody likes it, but because everybody expected something of the kind. But when someone says to be trying to sell something good in an ethical way, everybody instantly disbelieves it so they're going to point out any possible objection to prove it is not perfect. That's useful to reinforce their inductive reasoning and saves them the trouble of having to apply deduction to every news piece they come across. In other words, they know these things don't happen, so they simply find confirmation of their knowledge and share it.
That's a good insight. One could just say that, for the most part, people just believe what they already want to - or care to - believe.
Take the original Raspberry Pi, not because I have anything against the people who made it, but because it's a well-known example of a number of things. Most people who bought it probably didn't care about things like binary blobs, and when such things became a talking point, the Foundation downplayed it [1], which probably satisfied most people.
When enough people complained, the source code for the Linux device driver for the graphics stack was released [2], which probably satisfied most people.
When enough people pointed out that this device driver was just sending messages to an entirely separate operating system running on its own separate processor inside the SoC [3], the Foundation downplayed it, which probably satisfied most people.
When enough people got restless about that, the Foundation announced that source code was available [4] (but actually only for the graphics functionality on the separate operating system), which probably satisfied most people.
As far as I can tell, the rest of the proprietary binary is still secret. Interestingly, it appears to be based on ThreadX [5] which also features in the Intel Management Engine technology, where not even mighty Intel is allowed to release the code [6].
In effect, the Foundation have "aimed low" but "claimed high", and their target audience are generally happy to go along with it rather than change their worldview. (They don't seem to care as much about the same kind of ethical issues as most people reading this list.)
Meanwhile, the Purism laptop campaigns, worthy as they and their instigators undoubtedly are, rely on their privacy and freedom credentials to promote their products. However, upon concerns being aired about Intel Management Engine and the surveillance dangers, the response has been to build a petition to get Intel to release the source code of such technologies [7]. Again, this may satisfy most people in their audience, but a more demanding audience would realise the most likely outcome [8].
(But to Purism's credit, they do acknowledge other products that are not encumbered by such things, including those ThinkPad-based products mentioned in your - Xavi's - message.)
I guess the conclusion is that if you have low standards, people tend to hold you to even lower standards, whereas if you have high standards, people tend to hold you to even higher standards. But it actually isn't helpful if people expect perfection in an imperfect world, and it can be especially infuriating if they aren't really willing to improve the world, either.
Paul
[1] https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/a-birthday-present-from- broadcom/#comment-495042
[2] https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/open-source-arm-userspace/
[3] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/10/all-code-on- raspberry-pis-arm-chip-now-open-source/
[4] https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/
[5] https://lwn.net/Articles/588966/
[6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11427432