Being believable means being strict into and with principles: Meaning therefore doing no further compromise about proprietary software or semi-free code / projects. It's up to us as users to decide either to use something or not, to modify therefore the system fitting into our needs. But hey: Doing it like Fedora, coming up with the idea to integrate DXVK by default (source)? Bad idea, because this is not even the upstream version of Wine. We can see most of major distributions going more and more the way of very foul compromises in general. And that's the reasoning why this is the opposite of freedom, privacy and security.

It is even more work for the freedom-based distributions and projects, to remove the integration of proprietary services and interfaces.

Therefore free, libre soft- and hardware needs also a discussion about the phrase "free as in freedom" in general. Yes, that's a good one. But companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple are mixing this up, taking their own advantage of this. And what exactly is going to change for the "better"?

First things first: What is the "better"? Well, that's based on views in general. But I'd say an environment for every living here on the planet to live in peace and freedom would be a starting point. Enough to eat and not to starve, no harassment and no fight for living places, being individual with own understanding and understanding for empathy towards others either human being or not. Okay, and the base would be ethical choices. Yes, there can be companies to provide services, no problem. But what kind of services? Being clear about that: No company can offer something "social" in our actual system named "capitalism"!

There is the problem: The phrase "free as in freedom" was done and constructed when companies denied mostly the idea of "open-source" included in free software. Remember the campaigns Microsoft did? Remember those horrible wordings and their attacks onto "free, libre software"? What now? Pretending they "love open-source"? No, they do not, especially as a complete monolithic name Microsoft will never do this until the day their complete software is released under a free, permissive license, being ready to review and compile for everyone. There are really good people working there, trying to be ethical and into freedom. But let's be honest: When it comes up to decisions it's all about the maximum money, not about ethical choices for the masses. And there is the problem: Making money out of "free, libre soft- and hardware"? Okay. But giving something back? Well, it depends. Microsoft is doing this with some really little pieces and pretending further to be in "love with open-source". As mentioned: That's a marketing gag. Because we can see that: Has Wine got some information rewarded for their outstanding work? Or did Microsoft released some older products into the public, including the source-code? Games or something? No, nothing. Same with Apple, same with Google, same with most other companies.

It's about the "profit", not about ethics. Therefore the phrase should also got a rework: Free as in freedom, being always ethical!
A proposal to think of, a first starting point for discussions. And we need those, as free, libre software and open-source split up long ago. Going different paths. In general most people don't even know the difference at all and struggle to recognize with the mentioned phrase itself.

You shouldn't forget about Canonical as they do the same on another level: Most people even answer the question "Do you know Linux?" with "Ubuntu" these days. So there is the masquerade coming up with free as in freedom, same with democracy when used on that base. Both have very much in common as it used as some kind of "game" and that's the problem: The values are forgotten more and more.

Don't get me wrong: Free as in freedom is one high value as it is recognized for freedom in general with combination in ethical choices. Same with democracy, but with real meaning and with respect for every living individual, with empathy. I don't think Red Hat or / and Canonical do what they do because of some "evil masterplan". They just do it because of profit and most people handle the same with ignorance and arrogance, because they don't care or think others will look after that. Well, the damage is done until now: Desktop-environments like IceWM, JWM or Fluxbox can look very nice, but with no further dependencies on systemd or other bloatware. No dbus, no pulseaudio.

The projects coming up from people being working at "Red Hat" have different layers: I see the major problem within the adaption of major distributions itself and getting lost of choices in that process. So this adaption is the responsibility of the whole community, because many people just accepted that for more kind of convenience.

Removing the dependencies from dbus, systemd, pulseaudio and avahi is reducing already the selection of desktop-environments. Even elogind is depending on major upstream "logind" in some cases. Yeah this project is splitting up from it, but when it comes towards Gnome and KDE there has to be look after "logind". While consolekit is also lost in the process. Well, "Red Hat" is the one offering questionable projects, but the community and many projects take and took them without further questioning - besides some discussions of course. Being critical towards that means in these days being named as "systemd-hater". And when you say, that you have no personal problem with "systemd" but just don't want to use it and keep your system small, this will be also ignored. So I see a complete problem at the major level within.

The GPL and BSD-license, seems a neverending problem of two perspectives and indeed two sides of the same coin. But let's have a look onto the details: So what's the problem of BSD with the GPL? The major point is the definition of being "restrictive", meaning in short: You modify something? Please give back your modifications. The perspective of BSD: You modify something? Fine, your decision how to deal with it but please keep my name and copyright being working and into the corresponding data / files.

Where is the problem? Out of modifications on BSD there are corporate secrets made. So when talking about "gaming" for example: The Playstation-series is using a modified version of FreeBSD as operating system. You'll ask: What, but where are those modifications given back so everyone can use them? See the difference? And it's not about BSD being the bad here, it's just the systematic failure as capitalism and corresponding ignorance, arrogance are the major problem. To "share" means just more, but corporations and companies don't think in ethics, just in "money" and "profit". Loosing this can be compared to the "end of the world". But at Linux (without GNU) same mindset is coming up from another region as the GPL itself doesn't reflect one major freedom: The fifth one as not using one component and being free of it. Sounds strange? Well, yes: The existing four freedoms as use, study, share and improve. But where is the one with insights for consequences?

Consequences like systemd, dbus, pulseaudio and avahi being just major parts for most software and distributions these days on Linux (without GNU)? And not keeping the point here, going back onto BSD: Thinking about there are no "free hugs" just ignores the ethical and social problems coming up with egoism being mixed up as individualism. You can be individual, you can be free and nevertheless you can share your knowledge without any risk of loosing something. Well, okay: The last one is the pure theory as reality shows just another picture full with harassments, envy and more darkest reactions and feelings searching for power.

All in all: This point is the most complex one. Where is the social discussion, the share of knowledge? In fact nobody should have any kind of power except for the own position itself. This would an ideal, but as written down before: The reality is a hard one. Both licenses have their positive aspects, but both have their problems and the upcoming times getting even harder to fight for freedom without any kind of companies or corporations. Because their so-called "gifts" are nothing more than toxic ones in the end. I don't want to have the ultimate point here, but we should stop being kept into hateful reflections and projections, more thinking about how to create an accessible information-technology for every being.

Today another posting with a far more widening perspective - including the technical aspects later on: So what is a correct fitting and believable criticism towards capitalism? There are different possibilities but from my experience and knowledge just only a few being really without intolerance, harassment, dogwhistle politics and schemes full with structural antisemitism and literal hatred. Simple as that: Start with yourself. We are all into this and we cannot make ourselves free from any kind of responsibility. With little steps you can start analyzing your own consume, your own issues and be aware of: You will run into mistakes! Meaning also don't think at anytime that you have fully understand all social and political aspects coming up.

You want an example? Here take this: Do you think of corporations and companies doing something just intentional for being "evil from the roots"? Think again: There are human beings into this and everyone has own goals to reach. The result maybe of course very problematic, but this is not done intentional. Same with ideologies running around these days thinking of political actors doing something out of "evil" or being "evil". Well, no - okay not in the first place? Most time we as human beings do something out of different actions and reactions. Sometimes of course intentional, but having any "great plans" behind something, some "evil groups" getting into politics is just the first failure of many to follow afterwards as this is a dark road with darkest outcomes later on. What do you think can extend out of this? The mob running around with fire and weapons on the streets for searching some individuals or groups being "responsible" for whatever. Another simple but very fitting viewpoint: Just have a look onto human history itself, just look onto the ways disturbing opinions get holding the global society and just get a step back looking onto yourself. There you have the first and only being responsible. Yes there are many things coming out out of capitalism being harmful, being not fair and literally the other way around for living in peace and harmony. But getting "peace" with hatred doesn't sound like a rational concept. Getting people to know and discuss about alternatives, about free soft- and hardware for example is not done throughout carrying the water bucket behind them into proprietary services or communicating throughout these. And nevertheless Microsoft is nothing about an "enemy" or the "greater / lesser evil". Just another company as so many others. Well, okay: I don't like Microsoft and I don't like what they do. Do I "hate" the company? No, I don't and I won't write something like this down. And I won't search for intentional deeds for Microsoft literally destroying "free software" as greater plan. The outcome can be this, yes. But ask yourself: Who is responsible? The one offering some semi-free or proprietary services, firmware-blobs, frameworks, drivers and projects? Or the one using this because of convenience? Just look onto Phoronix for example and the comment section under some articles for GNU/Linux-libre. There you have the major issue as many individuals being just into this ignorance (no, not Phoronix itself in the first place and of course not all users and individuals behind comments, as this is what they all are - also at Microsoft: INDIVIDUALS), Making a difference for being believable and remember not to follow shortened phrases and descriptions, they can be harmful enough, ending just in real bad consequences. And that's about it: The consequences, not just for you, not just for me, for everyone. it is all about arrogance and ignorance: If you just see yourself and to follow some ideology making only others responsible you should think again. Even though many harmful things started as "good intention" back than, and afterwards? Be aware of that even behind the callout for "peace" there can be even more. Peace for which people and beings exactly? For everyone? Okay. Not for everyone? Not okay, definitely not okay.

And I know: This is all far more complex when looking at the blue planet in a whole. But just start with yourself and question your own actions as first step. Look behind the phrases, search for wordings and phrases as they define our reality. Hateful speech, harassment - therefore I name most platforms anti-social - has also consequences we can literally see for now. Stop that for yourself, criticize companies, groups and individuals? No problem. But with reasonable arguments and even though it is reasonable that somebody just don't want to use something. Systemd is too big and too complex for handling own modifications? Okay. No personal insult given, rational of course for own individual ways. And besides that: You can also look for projects like Hyperbola getting more input for the community here, so everyone else reading here has also information shared doing for example PKGBUILD-scripts. A perfect situation and no need for some faulty projections coming up from anywhere.
There is the best way to discuss and challenge ideas being worth as they are inclusive.

But let's get deeper into capitalism and WHY exactly this cannot be part of a free culture (from my point of view): From structural thinking and theories ahead capitalism is not able as "system" to react towards progressive and inclusive changes, so talking about "free soft- and hardware" we can see many examples for this out there. Just the company "Purism" is a very good example: Yes, there are some progressive thoughts but in the end it is just more about some marketing-picture itself "Purism" is up to, not about real progression, not about real inclusion and exactly not about criticism. Even though if one company is willing to do - remember the individuals as every human being counts - in the end just numbers and financials are the real deal up to. Same with Microsoft: Loving "open-source"? Okay, but when it comes to financials the best ones, the best arguments are driven out when money comes into and investment is needed. Same also with "Red Hat": Best intentions, but it's all about numbers, not about ethics. Therefore we should have organizations being critical towards this, having questions and also have a look onto declarations. A kernel full with proprietary firmware-blobs? Well, okay FSF-certified distributions don't have this, but there is much work to do and this won't be easier in the near future. Is the community prepared for this? Is the community clear looking behind problematic services? Or is it more about shortened phrases coming up from FSF or FSFE? Capitalism as systematic approach doesn't understand a "free culture", sharing information and knowledge without any other purpose to get something back. But that's even not the whole truth as free culture gets back many things as society itself can tryout for progress, being progressive and reflective in the same ways, not getting back into darkest ways and reactions (all to read in human history and events). I have doubts that the communities (plural here noted) are prepared and the ever ongoing discussions about restrictions won't help as egoism is nothing helping here. Restrictions needed to give modifications back, not making some fork out of it and share exactly nothing (there is the BSD-problematic mentioned). I have doubts and I have hopes, of course there are thoughts not finalized into here, of course I have not everything right taken as fact mixing up wishes and perspectives. But this is also an important point at the end: The situation is complex as society itself is, so we can go only through this as society and community, not alone. And after all we have also to look onto democracy itself as highest value for political and social participation, inclusion and not exclusion. As "freedom of speech" is not becoming a danger of itself: It has its boundaries, to respect others and not to try harassing them, to exclude beings for whatever reasoning - which is fact is inhuman. Exclusion for anti-democratic reasoning? Yeah, possible but better to give reasoning why something is reasonable inhuman and against living in peace. And please: Stop trying to give reasoning that nationalism or harassment of minorities in any form is reasonable or same opinion as any other democratic viewpoint! This is wrong, terrible wrong and harassing others is part of egoism, which itself is part of capitalism. Only very hateful projections as in the end: You win because others lost something. That's the price I've mentioned in the beginning, so our consume has consequences and we have to reflect about that as this is an individual responsibility. It is about suffering and illusions working, as suffering is the way taken for many beings on earth without ever having any kind of choice for them and illusions is the named part of ignorance and arrogance thinking that capitalism is the only choice we have to live in peace and liberty. Ask yourself: How big is the price we have to pay now and how big could this become for others to come after us? For later generations growing into hateful society, literally mountains of waste for older devices no one longer seems to want / need and a system where it tends back to where someone is born into, because knowledge is "restricted" behind paywalls. Is this a peaceful future for humans, for beings on earth? Doubt it!

GNU/Linux had the chance of changing as many older devices were supported. But nowadays that's even lost more and more: What's next? Well just "progression", but that's for a price throwing old out and getting more newest hardware and software - without any kind of questioning. You name it: systemd and others were created with this in mind. NVidia has never opened their drivers, AMD does the same and just getting the illusion of having some kind of opened framework around doesn't make this better. Firmware-blobs needed having 3D acceleration, that's it. Wifi, bluetooth and many more only works for proprietary reasoning. And now just more people cry out for throwing 32bit out of the kernel: More and more distributions getting behind that. Arch Linux? Ubuntu? You name it. Is GNU/Linux the place to be when looking onto all of this? Better to freeze the situation now and Hyperbola is one further chance we have.

Sorry for the time without any further reaction: Thanks for the feedback, zapper.
The problem what I see is that people tend to just look for "progression" instead having hardware living as long and free even possible. GNU/Linux would have the possiblity for this but also here we have some strange acceptance towards very problematic projects including more and more proprietary interfaces or being such big and monolithic and without any further alternative at the same time. The default kernel is full with freedom flaws and distributions have just a pragmatic approach - even most BSD. So Hyperbola stays straight ahead, being not pragmatic besides some others like Dragora.

Being believable as always means staying true towards own values and principles. Not many projects these days being marked as "free and open" following those ways and taking sponsoring from questionable sources. Newest one to mention OBS Studio, mentioning here: https://obsproject.com/blog/youtube-bec … bs-project

But they are not alone: Blender? Or Tor? Well supporting proprietary services and infrastructure means also staying far more away from emancipation of users. And that's the same where organizations failed, just to name one with the FSFE.
You want responsible people for the concurrent, complex situation? Well look into the mirror and stop supporting projects against user freedom. It is your individual decision.

But it is the same to believe not having any kind of responsibility with purchasing something. The situation is not quite simple and very complex, just looking at the concurrent state of the hard- and software relationship especially. But staying true for values and principles, having questions about the status ... better do it now instead to discover more unfriendly in the near future.

If you hear somebody talking about another buzzword called "Big Data", better take the chance and turn away. The reasoning is simple: Collecting so much data or better information cannot result in anything good. And I'm not talking about scientific data collected for research. I'm talking about the pure approach of the false promise from companies, groups and individuals towards the monetary view. There is no such thing like anonymous "Big Data". But this goes also deeper as the question is not only about this buzzword and even more about the global network itself: Has the modern "Internet" brought up anything good or better? There are so much places for getting clear information and instead using this toolset people just look onto simplified lies and fake promises. The problem seems to be within the modern individual itself: Nice pictures, more egocentric views. Nothing about empathy, about solidarity. And even more worse: Following some individuals as they made up being some kind of unquestionable. Do you really think they are unquestionable? I think the opposite and I deny following some names or people just because they had done something. Yes, it is about ideology and everyone has it, either accepting or rejecting.

Build your ideology about facts, about humanism, about empathy and solidarity. Not about some names as even tomorrow you can find out that a selected role model did right more questionable. It is the right of beings to make mistakes, but their duty to learn from them too! So learning is a task for lifetime, better we keep this mind and try being believable instead questionable. And if some group,  organization or individual wants you to follow just some names and claims, it is time to turn around!

+1

Well, calling out for one finalized system is not the best way, from my experiences with discussions about political progress for more empathy and solidarity. We humans need some "story" to believe in and this "story" should also contain a functional way for everybody - sidenote: with the best way not to build more influence and money than everybody else for the future incarnation of this.

So I think we could give more points about the technical side of the "story": The one for every human being to have a good life in peace and harmony, taught also empathy and solidarity, to help each other getting more knowledge. In fact? Being outright believable! We can be ignorant and arrogant, but with knowledge about that we can also learn to live with this and not surpressing it instead just trying to be honest with each other. The approach of socialism could be a part of the "story" to reach out for a peaceful society, but there is so much needed that we can only work out point by point and it'll be more than a lifetime. But working on this to get everybody emancipated in technology, or just trying. The more people recognize that soft- and hardware is part of the problem for now, the more others come up trying to echo some wordings, just lip service and nothing more. Being able to get away from this, being strict in principles and clear in values.

In the end: Free hard- and software is some kind of a "fight", done with clear arguments. To get the load on more shoulders distributed instead having just one or two major names for creating components! Sharing is caring, not just an empty phrase as this is the base to learn more and going deeper into complex surroundings. Step by step!