Well, I think it would interesting to list more studies and problems for further discussion regarding being believable. What about flatpak as a concrete actual example? The idea itself sounds nice but a further look onto the website Flathub shows exactly the opposite. Proprietary applications like Spotify, Steam and Skype are available besides free, libre projects. Where should this readlly help? And what about the idea of Rob McQueen (Board member of GNOME) as he noted the following:

Sounds not good at all regarding free soft- and hardware? Remember: We are talking really here not about the pragmatic "Open-Source". But as we are already talking about Gnome: What about the so-called supporting organizations? Well, lovely Google is to be found there and don't get me wrong: I'm not starting here another "Google is the evil and enemy at the gates!"-argumentation. It is more about the literally wrong direction and I'm not the one deciding this because it is all about the wording itself: "Free as in freedom" includes also responsibility and the will looking after mistakes and discussing about them. The mass seems to cryout for easy integration, no difference between free and proprietary software and all at once in a really wild mixup. How do we think this is ending? My assumption: It'll break Linux from the ground and making it unusable when talking about freedom and privacy, the right to study and learn at anytime and the right to fork and modify everywhere and everything.

How do I come to this assumption? Even today projects like systemd are done by developers paid from companies and they have much more time as others doing this in their free time. So those developers paid for have much more time building up a full bloated context and that's a major reason having systemd including more parts - no, this won't stop as the team came up with homed. When talking about the KISS-principle I have to say even now when talking a gobal Linux-community: We are really far away from that, people. Galaxies between the concrete imagination of Keep it simple and straightforward (you can choose also other wordings) as people for doing development and documentation have different amount of time and this is the big breaking-point. In the end companies and commercial interests have even an easy going with all of this and the false image for "Linux" being safe, secure and simple rising up more and more.

Don't misunderstand me: GNU/Linux (as using now the GNU within) can be really simple, fast and safe. But not with all the other things back in. Not with all this false promises as more and more centralization is ongoing right now as I write those words here. Are there alternatives for Flathub? No, not really. And what about the FSF for example having a concrete argument against those complex things like systemd of doing a fork for flatpak? As long as it is "free as in freedom" there is no problem, so "we" can take it? Erm, okay? And what about being independent? Raising a freedom of choice? That's all part of being believable, coming not with false promises of being "easy to handle" and stopping that pragmatism, which even overcomes the clearest principle. The reasoning? Because people even argument that they have a freedom to choose using proprietray applications. Yes, they can do so, but this is not about tolerance as this won't stop there and more dependencies from those big, bloated projects (systemd) will come up while distributions like Hyperbola and others have more work to remove this or freeze the current version used - including therefore backporting security fixes in one way or another. This cannot be good, this is against being believable and shred the trust into pieces when security issues won't fix one day because the dependencies stands in the way. So we should question ourselves about having the newset , pragmatic choice while in the long run there can emerge real chances. Even the phrase "X is an alternative to Y" is questionable  as people always tend to think in comparisons. GNU is not about that from my point of view and we will ruin it doing just in comparisons!

Yeah, me too. But we have already many building sites when talking about free, libre software. This pragmatic mentality coming up with "open-source" caused mischief until today as we already need principles not bound to persons and more for a globalized understatement at all. That's really big words I'm using here, I know. But better to get on and start with it, being believable!

Actually, having a copyleft license makes it marginally better.  But yeah, it still is a terrible bit of software.

Personally I think the FSF needs to realize even free software licenses can be used for restricting freedom. Case in point, systemd, dbus, networkmanager, pulseaudio, etc...

A long story in short: Using proprietary services like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram or Pinterest does only the opposite of distributing freedom and privacy

In fact many participants and projects make usage of those services, some even use them as the only way for further news. This doesn't help spreading freedom and tells just all users and developers the opposite: Making use of those services is in some way "okay". Far more worse Twitter has just some standing and I don't get it: Why using this echochamber full with transported hatred and shortened facts or even worse lies? Calling this "social media" is a very bad joke and just for reaching the majority the risks are far more higher than any profit could be as people starting to believe they don't have to change anything. And transporting some kind of news back into those anti-social media is the same: Nothing is going to change, if we as community (meaning "free software" in general) stay this kind of pragmatic! Those corporate websites and services just make use of all data they can get and the community itself is getting fractured more than ever. Twitter is being helpful? Stop joking. And services like Diaspora or Mastodon are not better, just because they use a copyleft license. They are even far more worse as some participants and demagogues use them for proclaiming their "freedom of speech". Well, better call this "refusal for criticism" as every freedom of speech just has to stop when others are insulted, harassed and their rights and dignity should be removed.

Don't get it and I will never get this: Stop this and start being believable, meaning also being inclusive and not exclusive! Everything else is a waste of time in best cases and could become a big problem about time as facts are reduced to just 280 signs and "open-source" will become the same as "free software". Full of trouble with those simplifications and I have not even mentioned the devastating effects for democracies when fascists take over - way too much of those mentalities are in there.

A democracy built on top of clear principles, based on respect and inclusion for every peaceful living and being, discussing clear problems with the will to solve them and not making some smear campaign out of them, open for criticism and against capitalism in general as it is the base for many problems. Don't giving up and keep argumenting as we should never handing out our individual freedom and privacy to some companies. As humans have recognized the scheme of simulating "trust" (and then doing something else) those companies are within failure, as the illusion of some "free markets" is the same - the toxic waste of capitalism as "free software" is a complete opposite model. Whatever smear campaign and argument is possible, will be used and done!

But it's just for having more "outreach", the excuse for making an account using  proprietary services and I have heard this so many times. And Twitter announced even yesterday building some small independent team of up to five open source architects, engineers, and designers to develop an open and decentralized standard for social media and a mass of people cheer up. Exactly why? There are already defined protocols and ideas available: ActivityPub? Diaspora? Zod? Many more.

That's the problem with capitalism and neoliberalism: Only an "authority" is accepted instead of facts and of course a company like Twitter is exactly this. I've mentioned before that the handling of anti-social networks is not good: The reasoning? Because also Diaspora, Mastodon and others also repeat paradigms known from the proprietary services: You like a comment or posting, you share a posting and where is the discussion? Where is the talk, the social interaction? Clicking on some icons to execute further actions is no interaction and not even near being social. In fact it is the opposite: People just hunting for affirmation instead of reflection, getting into closed filterbubbles. No difference between proprietary or libre services therefore. Okay, you can participate in a discussion under a posting and I remember early days at Diaspora where this last for weeks with hundreds of comments under a posting. I've left the network after this changed more and more with the paradigms being copied from people and developers, with examples like Facebook and Google+ in mind. Better to have a high number of votings ("likes") instead of a long discussion! There you have the major problem: The ongoing shortening of information, of discussion and reduction of facts and complexity.

Nevertheless the basic idea of having decentralized systems is "good", using them for (real) "social interaction" also and not new. But it was ignored long enough and the "blockchain" is again some buzzword. Same with the announcement of Twitter. Was not believable before and is the same bad joke. But I think enough participants will rise up in the near future proclaiming again that Twitter is opening and where we would have been "without all those companies and their support" - another smear argument for accepting donations from companies first and afterwards perhaps even more. But hey, you may ask: What could possibly go wrong? Being pragmatic and giving up is better than thinking, eh? The known false arguments and the resulting events are in chronological ordering: First the companies bound people with the illusion of "social interactions", second they sell data given to them, third they recognize it is better to use libre, free software in some ways instead of inventing otherwise and fourth they simulate interest for the greater good of all. Indeed it is for someone's good, but not for society, not for the community and not for the projects the companies are interested in. It's just more of the same: The interest of those companies like Twitter and they won't release any kind of idea or bunch of source, perhaps just some minor fragments as Microsoft did in the past with .net and Mono. Again people cheering up, but for what exactly? Was the complete source-code of Windows released under a copyleft or permissive license? Was DirectX given to the people of the Wine-project for further implementation? All hardware-vendors have been enforced to release their source-code and there won't be a any further discussion about if Windows and its sources would be released? You see: Playing "bullshit-bingo" is big in these days! Perhaps this was the same always for us human beings and we like to play this political nonsense? The companies try to open up, nothing is far more wrong as description as they are locking in with illusions and the "free software"-community has no further arguments against this while following the "open-source"-claims. And we all are not independent: As diabetic for example I have to follow selected companies creating my insulin and possibilities to check my current blood sugar. If those possibilities are not available any longer I have to look after others, but not because I have done this decision on my own. It is because an "authority" - a company - decided this because it was no longer of financial interest and benefit for them!

The reasoning, quite simple as hard: If they decide not to create insulin and possibilities for diabetics any longer - political motivated, financial interests etc. - I'm going to die very soon. And so is the same for others with chronic health conditions. So is the same with information and technologies, on another surface and with another context as free knowledge and information is crucial for a free, libre and open society and colorful culture for all beings! It is easy to choose the nearest exit and not to think about consequences, but they are already here to be seen for everyone willing.

The problem with snap and flatpak? They may be technical free software, but on the ethical level and view they are just a failure as proprietary applications are distributed throughout them. Making therefore any free, libre distribution mixed up outside the personal HOME-directory!

But that's not the end of the story to be told as flatpak just have got Flathub as trusted source for an installation. There has to be done a hard fork of flatpak and create some kind of free repository only accepting libre, free software and appliances. And there is the breaking point as for now there is no further interest and libre distributions like Hyperbola have enough work to do on their own repositories - not even talking about Trisquel at this point, but it is the same. And the community is not that big we could manage this kind of fork for now. It was just rational to remove flatpak and same with snap as both are just semifree under best conditions.

Wow, big thanks for all the thoughts and input regarding different problems of our time. But first things first: You have written down personal information about your usage of software. So do I: My insight for computers started back with using the C64. My dad had one and he showed me different games and possibilities on it. Tried there my first skills in programming - okay, it was one sample from the handbook, but I modified it. In the early 90s we had a PC with DOS and Windows 3.11. I was fixed onto DOS with all the classics at the time: Wing Commander, Privateer, System Shock, Ultima Underworld (I love adventures and roleplaying-games). With "Windows 95" I've started with some further programming and tests: First with Visual Basic, later with Visual C++. With the Pentium-generation I had a time to discover my personal favorites in gaming until today: Diablo and Fallout and I thought to have good operating-system back when "Windows 2000" was available. At that time my interests were most into desktop-applications, media and working on software I thought being helpful for myself and others, but being then proprietary.

I was fascinated from my first insight into GNU/Linux as my dad and myself had done this with SUSE Linux 6.0 when it was available, but we had then no further idea about X-server or desktop-environments as nobody told us the context - perhaps I'd have been migrated just earlier and faster? With the upcoming of "Windows XP" I had enough for the first time as the enforced activation was completely against my own views about computer hard- and software. But I've accepted that with protesting and what should I've say? Most friends and family used Windows, for everything. Windows stayed until 2010: So I have seen Vista and 7. But afterwards it was enough because the later versions were absolutely inacceptable for me, speaking about desktop AND technical enforced "toolsets" (including my everlasting love-hate for online-activation). And even more applications followed this nonsense: Adobe for example with their creative cloud. So I had also lost more and more of my tools for usage as I've learned media and programming later on for my job helping people into digital communication and making tools / applications.

Lucky me as I've found my entrypoint with Ubuntu first and later more and more with generic principles of free, libre software - as I've said this was always some personal interest. My wish would be having a complete free society based on those ideas: No patents and everybody, every being on the planet could have good life - very generic description because this would need much more space and take the topic away.

As you've described it: Most people don't think about the context of their used applications and services. Even the so-called smartphone - better "mobile computing device with phone-capabilities" - is so much depending on proprietary services and is at the middle of many people's life at the same time. If you don't want to participate, you're ignored - in best cases. I had many debates and discussions with different approaches: "DRM and Steam" was one as I had never further understatement for using those. Some friends made me a gift with "Battlefield: Bad Company 2" (if I remember correct) and this was one tryout making me interested into Steam and online-distribution. Of course I've tried it and did not find any inclusive way for me as it was completely everything I wanted and want to stand for. So I've quit short time after! Same with some online-games: "World of Warcraft" was one, "Age of Conan" was another. I've mentioned it above: I'm a passionate roleplayer and I like to tell stories, to fascinate others with interesting events full with characters and scenarios. But also here: Nothing to take more out of it. The time was interesting and I've learned much being even more into freedom and standing up against ignorance. With my entry into GNU/Linux I've also tried out some of the so-called "social networks" - the free, libre ones. And what I have seen there was even enough for me quitting again: Diaspora, Libertree, GNU Social and Mastodon - just for the records here.

So what's the point? Standing up for concrete principles, on many levels. Soft- and hardware of course, but also for social and political points. As I've learned from time: There is no perfect approach, but it is up on us individuals for being believable for ourselves. Holding the door for others, but they must enter on their own will, not being enforced. Otherwise the false paradigms will just continue: Greed? Arrogance? Ignorance? Searching for power? And people just try to copy known paradigms more and more, making the best idea, the best context afterwards more of the same. I'd like to have more distributions with freedom of choice, for example. But would this really help? I have doubts for it. So being small like Hyperbola has absolutely benefits as the community can define a secure and real libre distribution.

What about DRM within the Linux-kernel? What about all the proprietary firmware-blobs being builtin? Perhaps it is unknown for many users: The official Linux-kernel has just an own repository for proprietary firmware-blobs here. Those blobs (Binary Large Objects) are components, where no further source code is available. The integration of them goes back into 1996 when developers of the Linux-kernel official began to use them.

So even if you think your concurrent installation of a generic distribution is "free as in freedom", it is not. That's the point for Linux-libre being part of free, libre distributions since 2006 first started and the difference of any pragmatic view (meaning "Open-Source") and a full libre usage with social and ethic principles. One further example are graphiccards from AMD (ATI): You won't be able getting them running with all features included when using a libre kernel. The reason is just easy and tragic: The MESA-stack just needs proprietary firmware-blobs for them, as it the same with NVidia and Intel also on newer versions. Being believable means also showing the interests of companies where they can get to: Just leaving the sphere of free software as any inclusion won't end good or with the idealistic touch for companies opening. It's just another lie.

What about DRM mentioned above? When looking throughout implementations within the kernel-sources we find again participants with domains like intel.com and chromium.org as Intel also distribute HDCP. Regarding HDCP: It is official supported through the generic Linux-kernel! The conclusion is therefore: Nobody at the Linux-foundation has got a further problem with those proprietary technologies and DRM in general. And the users are fooling themselves believing this is some kind of "good" or just "pragmatic". Companies won't help in any way and their support is the same: Just for their own interests, nothing more and nothing less! Nothing for a common sense, nothing for people being "free as in freedom" and nothing about being believable.

Just a sidenote about the wording Trojan Horse: It's a smear wording and phrase, shortening criticism and complexity in general. So of course Mono is really nothing to use as there are enough points regarding nonfree patents for example (Information within TODO-list) but it is not some kind of "trojan horse". This comparison is another phrase trying to demonize for a short outcome and glorify something. But in reality it's also not about one, glorified way or point of view, it's about principles or being just pragmatic.

To be really free means also being free from those false accusations and smear phrases. Yes, everyone tends to use them from time to time for example when being in anger. But in fact they're just about shortening a complex connection. Yes, companies like Microsoft are not helpful in any way, but they are also not evil or the biggests demon ever known. They are just doing what they think it is correct! But do the "free software"-community has to accept this? That's a major question and I think there is one simple answer: Just NO. So smear phrases and wordings - same with piracy - don't really help describing a situation or a connection.

Yes, Microsoft did campaigns trying defame GNU/Linux and GNU in general. But questioning yourself: Does it really help for doing the same or comparable attitude? Shortening information just end up with "alternate facts" and this is another smear word for those are just called out as lies. Do we need all of this? Yes, "free software" was and will be always political and therefore being attacked. But let's just do "our" things, "our" principles and being "free" of smear wordings and phrases for they are just not helpful creating open doors with open information and an inclusive culture for every being. Remembering these phrase: We as human beings have the right for doing failures, but we have absolutely the bounden duty to learn from the failures we have done!

Hmm, think it would be interesting for having another discussion in another thread as your annotations are valued but speaking for myself: I don't think in "countries", "nationalities" or "nations". It is not that I have no respect for the people, it's just I have no understatement for the definition of a "nation" as it is in some ways excluding and the concept of "we and the others". I like it more including - mentioned it every time again: I am an idealist!

So you mentioned this and I'm going to define my understatement a little bit more: I am a diabetic and I have enough experiences about being excluded. Also I have enough experiences with being bullied and mobbed back in my childhood, youth and also as an adult you are not safe of being excluded if you don't fit into pictures and some drawers. Therefore "nationality" is just another information for me and nothing more as for me in an utopian point of view there are no borders needed and people living in peace. Perhaps this is some naive view as this seem not to correspond with some kind of human nature or better with some participants in our global society!

But we can go back to picture of systemd: I have no problem with the existance of it, but it's just so I don't want to use it and I don't care about it as it consumes time I want to give in other fields - writing down some philosophical aspects here is one of them. And I have no personal problem with Mr. Poettering as I don't see him as some kind of person people like him to be. He is like everyone else, with the exclusion of doing work for the project systemd. In the end? Nothing better or worse. It's up to more making this a bigger problem as distributions do it with the inclusion of systemd and the exclusion of every other possible INIT-framework. The easier an answer could be, the more I am critical about it.
So speaking about different nationalities: I think they doesn't matter at all as we are all human beings, different views or ideas of course. But same rights and valueable of human rights. That should be the basics for working on libre software! Everything else takes the discussions on sideways and there are prejudices I think have no further room, because they exclude again instead being inclusive. Therefore I like the concept of Hyperbola and their social contract, especially: Play the ball, not the man. And the ball is the ignorance, the shortened answers of our time and after all excluding therefore people, which is just unfair and against everything "free software" and "free culture" stands for.

And last but not least: If you want, you can share your experiences with "gaming" especially here now.

So why just keeping Debian free from systemd? There are derivates doing this like antiX or Devuan. And they all use packages being to be discussed within repositories - Steam anyone? Being one kind of "universal distribution" does not mean to integrate everything with a sticker "Running under Linux!" on it. And I know this is shortened, but please let's wait for the final voting of the community from Debian until further work. INIT-freedom is so important as freedom within repositories is. Furthermore: What about Gnome and their integration of proprietary services? What about flatpak as the "free software"-community didn't manage to create any alternative to the so-called official "application-repository"? Just the argumentation: You just don't have to install proprietary applications!

Come on: That's a lame excuse for being pragmatic onto proprietary content and licensing from companies with no other goal as marketing.

Well? Ubuntu is a proof of concept about failed by design as  Canonical is now enforcing snap and people just do the same as always: Ignoring the major issues!

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+sour … ug/1856054