Tesla Model X autonomously crashes into building, owner claims - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/article/3079807/car-tech/tesla-model-x-autonomously-crashes-into-building-owner-claims.html <comment><USER2> I'm very skeptical about it. A lot of accidents happen when people confuse the brakes and acceleration paddle. Furthermore, the person who had the accident claimed the break was unresponsive. This could further mean she confused the paddles and instead of breaking, she accelerated even more.

I'm happy to hear, though, that the person was not heavily injured (she had burns on her arms but I don't think they are of the second or third degree because she would have mentioned that). Those accidents can be quite dangerous (especially in fast cars like the tesla).

I'm looking forward for the black box reporting

<comment><USER3> Where did you get your information on the danger of a crash with a tesla vs a regular car? They surpassed every car in collisions tests and the concerns about the battery going up in flames have been fixed since the car was established.

<comment><USER2> > Where did you get your information on the danger of a crash with a tesla vs > a regular car? They surpassed every car in collisions tests and the concerns > about the battery going up in flames have been fixed since the car was > established.

I'm not saying that tesla is not safe, in fact I'm saying quite the opposite. Tesla is a fast car and if not properly handled, all fast cars are dangerous. Since the 75D's aren't delivered yet, I'd expect it to be a 90D or P90D. The go from 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds. I believe they are fast then any other SUV out there (except prototypes, maybe), when in ludicrous mode.

So, I'd expect that this tesla did not crash with 10mph into the wall. I'd expect a Porshe with similar acceleration to have much more serve damages to the driver. This, once again, shows how safe a tesla is.

<comment><USER3> my bad!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That is some terrible reporting. Who knows what will come of this accident, but the one referenced where the guy claims the car ran into a trailer on it's own was pretty well refuted by Tesla's black-box style monitoring.

It raises the question of how to prove the trustworthiness of the event recording. I suppose an audit of their recording mechanisms could be enough, but it would be nice if the permanent recorder was made by a third party.

<comment><USER5> Crazy idea but what about a camera placed in a way that Tesla would capture footage of the brake and accelerator. Store up to X minutes/hours of that would come in helpful when combined with the other data they collect.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like an unnecessarily complex alternative to just logging the pedal state the same as you would a keypress.

<comment><USER7> The problem with just logging like that is in the reliability of the logs - what if there's a defect in the position sensor? The pedal (and thus the logs) may report throttle at 100% and breaks at 0% even if it was the other way around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> New car, 5 days old, seems from the onset that it is driver error as someone was in the vehicle behind the wheel. New vehicles are a major change to routine. Speculation... the data might reveal that the wife lied to cover crashing a 5 day old car.

<comment><USER9> This story will certainly be more interesting once Tesla publishes the data from their side.

<comment><USER10> The story is already interesting because Tesla does this, and no other car company seems to.

Tesla monitors your driving behavior so that they can save face and blame the driver if things go bad. I don't know of any other car company that does this.

Those monitors are installed to protect the company image, not you.

Its like you're buying a $100,000 piece of spyware. The car isn't your possession. Its sensor data belongs to Tesla the company, and not you. Despite your purchase of the vehicle. And that's assuming that Tesla's secret black- box technology is actually legitimate, and that they're not making stuff up / hiding the truth from us.

<comment><USER11> This is true, and while I do despise the invasion of privacy, and everything that comes with owning a $100,000 piece of spyware, I do appreciate that barring conspiracy and a flagrant disregard for the law someone somewhere has some sort of technical data unlikely to be vulnerable to human memory/eyewitness accounts related to the crash.

Tesla has also convinced me that it is the type of company whose employees that would not seek to hide something data it correctly clearly supported. That's a completely unverifiable (and most likely incorrect) assertion on my part, and of course a result of brand-cultivation on theirs, but still some companies just can't claim that at all, and I think Tesla has a leg to stand on still.

<comment><USER10> > someone somewhere has some sort of technical data unlikely to be vulnerable > to human memory/eyewitness accounts related to the crash.

I can agree with this. Having this information recorded should be a standard feature for cars of this price-range.

However, the information should be in the customer's control (which should also be fairly passed onto Tesla through a subpoena if necessary).

Its a basic tenant of "ownership". If you don't have primary control of the data, you really don't own it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are plenty of vidoes on YouTube of cars "suddenly accelerating to maximum speed, jumping a curb and slamming into things". They all do it accidently. People will blame others for their errors. Bad journalists will pick up the shit for page views.

</comment><comment><USER13> Tesla is famous for publishing the logs. The owner should be aware of this before making claims. It would have been prudent to keep this quiet till Tesla had a chance to respond. Now if the logs prove it was driver error Tesla will publish the logs and all this outrage would be over nothing. On the other hand if this was an error in Tesla's system it is in Tesla's best interest to be transparent and publish the logs and an explanation on how it intends to fix this.

Either way a public outrage was not required unless the owner wanted to ensure he got a new car even if it was the driver's fault. By claiming ""I don't' know if they're going to acknowledge if it was their fault," Puzant said.", the owner wanted to cast doubt on Tesla's integrity and also give himself an "out" if Tesla determined it was driver's fault.

<comment><USER5> I would suspect that if Tesla has a rock solid way to determine it was the drivers fault they will fight that till the ends of the earth. (Of course the same could happen even if not the case but that would be a conspiracy and probably less likely for practical reasons).

<comment><USER13> Considering that the owner's wife said that she tried the brakes but they weren't working I am pretty sure there will be brake usage logs coupled with associated acceleration/deceleration data. That should tell us if the brakes were applied and if they were working. The acceleration logs will also show if the acceleration pedal was engaged at the time or not. I am assuming that an auto acceleration log is different from a hardware pedal usage log. If not we can't determine if the acceleration was due to software or hardware.

<comment><USER5> Sure but by the same token in theory if a brake was applied it should work and in this case the car owner is saying it didn't work (hence my video footage comment elsewhere).

<comment><USER14> Given that this type of accident happens all the time in all types of cars, why is it that the car owner's memory is preferred to a sensor? Because you're basically saying that ALL cars have the same flaw. It's a lot more likely that humans are fallible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Tesla is quick to publish data that shows driver error, I wonder if they will be as quick to do so if it actually is a software issue. My guess however is that any refusal to publish the black box data will be taken as an admission of guilt.

I get the impression that the media is just itching for an actual software error so they can start a FUD firestorm about SDCs.

<comment><USER16> I don't think they quickly publish data to show data error, but just to refute claims that their product is deficient or dangerous. This might be what you mean but they aren't looking to disparage customers but just to maintain the integrity of their brand to false claims.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > It's not like she's a 90-year-old person who's going to press the gas pedal > instead of the brake

While there is a correlation between age and difficulty driving, I don't know how this is a valid defense. In moments of stress and danger we're all prone to making mistakes.

> It's a mile and half away from our house

Many accidents happen close to home due to your perceived feeling of knowledge and safety in the environment.

</comment><comment><USER11> Looks like an answer is already out:

[http://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-x-crash-not-at- fau...](http://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-x-crash-not-at-fault/)

No idea about that source but supposedly tesla has made a statement. Similar statement also at this site:

[http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-x-crash-result-human- er...](http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-x-crash-result-human-error/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Turns out my skepticism was right after all, the driver did hit the wrong paddle: [http://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-x-crash-not-at- fau...](http://electrek.co/2016/06/06/tesla-model-x-crash-not-at-fault/)

Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851817](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851817)

</comment><comment><USER18> The state of journalism today is pathetic. Some random person claims something that is extremely unlikely and it gets run as a story. No verification of events or even a comment from Tesla. They likely published intentionally before Tesla's comment because they knew it would be "Our logs show the driver did something incredibly stupid and it had nothing to do with auto-pilot" and this would become a non-story. Instead we have this clickbait bullshit that unjustly harms Tesla's reputation.

</comment><comment><USER19> "He said his wife had not activated any self-driving features at the time of the crash."

He said it himself, the electronics were off, his wive fucked up.

<comment><USER20> They are claiming that the features were off - but malfunctioned and 'worked' anyway. (eg: a mishap by Tesla)

As with most others here, I believe it was user error. These sort of accidents happen - it's just "unique" this time since they are claiming it was Tesla's fault.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If we don't develop due process for machines, they're going to be the scapegoat for everything.

...and I'm going to get away with murder.

</comment><comment><USER22> The model X seems to attract a lot of issues. Too bad it also tarnish the reputation of the model S.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is a very bold effort on Tesla's part. Fast deployments of autonomy code has never been tried before. There will inevitably be some casualties (even some deaths) in this process, but no other process can guarantee otherwise. The long term impact on public health is HUGE [1]. Some company just has to figure out how to weather the storm of (possibly irrational) criticism from the first such casualty. The company that can parse through this process and update their methods first will win.

[1] [http://www.sciencealert.com/driverless-cars-could-reduce- tra...](http://www.sciencealert.com/driverless-cars-could-reduce-traffic- fatalities-by-up-to-90-says-report)

</comment><comment><USER10> Unlike the previous accident, which the Tesla S literally doesn't have the sensors to see the above-ground trailer... this Model X crashed into the side of a building. I'd like to assume that the below-chassis sensors would have been able to pick that up.

I'm more concerned about edge-cases like the Tesla S autonomous crash rather than cases like this one. My current assumption (pending evidence: we don't have any yet so we can only assume) is that the driver is the blame in this specific case.

We'll see when more data comes in.

\</comment><comment>----

Unfortunately, I don't think it is moral for a car company to install sensors and use sensor data against the car's owner.

If I buy the car, then the whole car is allegedly mine: including these sensors that only Tesla can tap into. The fact that I don't have access to all the sensor data means that Tesla's definition of "ownership" is rather convoluted compared to a normal car.

<comment><USER24> Sure it's moral - in fact, it's great. The question of morality only arises if there's asymmetric access to the data. In the event of a claim being made by the driver against the company, _both_ sides should have complete access to the logs data to make their case more firmly. What shouldn't happen is ONLY one party being able to inspect the data.

But this is unlikely to happen in practice. A lawyer for the driver would undoubtedly subpoena Tesla for access to the data. And a reasonable judge would probably concur. IANAL and IANAJ, so the latter is a guess. :)

<comment><USER10> > But this is unlikely to happen in practice. A lawyer for the driver would > undoubtedly subpoena Tesla for access to the data. And a reasonable judge > would probably concur. IANAL and IANAJ, so the latter is a guess. :)

So what's the process here? You're going to start suing Tesla so that you hope you can officially subpeona them of the data you don't have access to?

Its asymmetric no matter what. The role of these logs should be reversed: the driver ought to have first-dibs at the logs to determine if he has a legitimate case to bring forth against Tesla.

Then Tesla should subpeona the data once they start getting sued. In any case, Tesla holding the data so that they have the information-advantage against their own customers is a bit fishy.

<comment><USER24> Yes, that's exactly what you do when you sue anyone and you believe they have data relevant to the case. It's called discovery. First you have to have a reasonable basis for doing so, and a claim that their car auto-drove into the wall is such a basis.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Install Fests: What to Do about the Deal with the Devil - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/install-fest-devil <comment><USER3> So, as a card-carrying member of the FSF, I'll weigh in. When I pull out my FSF card that contains a tiny flash drive with a Trisquel image on it [0], most people think it's incredibly cool and often allow me to demo it on some old PC/laptop they have lying around.

The "demo" of Trisquel goes pretty well for about ten minutes (the DE is quite easy for people used to the Win 9x paradigm to understand), then I inevitably get to the point where they want to see the browser or something that requires internet, and it doesn't work. It doesn't work because there are _very_ few desktops or laptops that ship with a wireless card supporting a completely free driver that Trisquel will ship. And that's where the conversation usually ends. Because if the free OS can't let the computer do the things the end-user expects it to do, they won't use it. It doesn't matter if they align practically or philosophically with the FOSS movement, a computer that can't access the internet is just a toy or a paperweight to them.

[0][https://www.fsf.org/associate/benefits](https://www.fsf.org/associate/benefits)

<comment><USER4> > a computer that can't access the internet is just a toy or a paperweight to > them.

which would be a thing unheard of if we were still in 1993. We aren't, and you find people happily using iOS or Android devices that do mostly web browsing and video watching and would functionally be a toy or a paperweight if you transported them back to 1993.

Computing has changed in the last 25 years. Paradoxically, more people are using FOSS than before while fewer would subscribe to the kind of Free Software purism (totalitarism?) that the FSF advocates. Windows running a (GNU/)Linux subsystem is a victory of Open Source, but a defeat for the Free Software movement.

Which brings us to

> if they align practically or philosophically with the FOSS movement

and I'd call this a ruse - the Open Source movement developed as a countercurrent to FSF's ideology around Free Software mostly in the shape of people that liked Free Software (both as in Freedom and as in Beer) as well as software licensed under more liberal licenses but did not see the idea of Copyleft as central to their enterprise. There is a FOSS movement, replete with sympathisers and drama and everything around it, but it's at best a strict superset of the Free Software movement that also contains people with non-FSF-compatible opinions.

<comment><USER5> If you took an iOS or Android device back to 1993 with no internet, it would have a camera, photo editing capabilities, text editing (desktop publishing, with the right software), music synthesis and editing, a rich game platform, a guitar tuner, a music player, and so on. In short, everything we used computers for back then and more, since phones are just mini-computers combined with cameras. That web browsing is available on top of all that local functionality, and is the most popular, shows why people use our phones 24/7.

But I'm not sure how this is related to a desktop OS in 2019 that can't access the internet. Sure, a modern GNU/Linux desktop system would have been amazing in 1993 with no internet too.

<comment><USER6> It has significantly fewer of those things if you don't have wifi access to download them from the store to begin with. Since software doesn't come on floppy disks anymore...

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure how we're supposed to complete the entire story because it also requires time travel or something. I assumed that we can assume that the necessary software was available, just not internet access.

<comment><USER7> How about an island, or any truly remote location on earth (or in space) that may lack broadband.

<comment><USER8> how did you get there without preparation? no one carries around a mobile phone with 0 apps, the first thing you do is download all the essentials

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm all for OSS, but reading things like this really make me think of the community as totally nuts. I don't have the time in my life to get this worked up over OSS, and I don't have the time to avoid the smallest paid software package. I guess I am glad that a community like this exists to push OSS forwards, but I wonder how much this pushes away more moderate people. Would the ecosystem be as easy for a moderate like me to enter were it not for these fringe envelope pushers? Would it be slightly harder to enter, but offset by the larger number of developers not alienated by the apparent gung-ho anti- establishment attitude? In the end I think it's a benefit but it does push me away.

<comment><USER10> Nuts or not they fight the good fight on our behalf by acting as an anchor at the other end of the spectrum.

Even if I'm not as ardent about it as a beneficiary of open source in all its forms I can understand the viewpoint of those who are.

There is value in that I think.

<comment> a-nikolaev Richard Stallman is important as a visionary. I think, his views may be really impractical short-term, but he is often spot-on long-term. Taking him seriously and listening to his opinion is worth the effort, I think.

<comment><USER11> Interesting. What are some examples of things he predicted in the past that were really impractical short-term, but turned out to be spot-on long-term?

<comment> a-nikolaev I don't have specific examples off the top of my head. This is just the realization I had after reading and watching his talks and articles. You can google "stallman was right" and "stallman was wrong", and see where he got it right or not.

I did some search, and this discussion seems helpful and exactly on this topic: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a fairly amusing read. Favorite quote:

        This devil would be a human being disguised to teach a moral lesson with a theatrical metaphor, so let's not take the metaphor too far. I think we would do well not to say that users are "selling their souls" if they install nonfree software—rather, part of their own freedom is what they forfeit. We don't need to exaggerate to teach the point...

I'm sympathetic to the FSF's goals, but I think they're desire for ideological purity prevents them from achieving meaningful wins. Increasing the availability and desirability of Free software shouldn't have to mean total exclusion of all non-Free software.

As an industry, I think we should be more troubled by devices that aren't even allowed to run code without special permission from some third party. The App Store is a sad state of affairs in my opinion.

<comment><USER13> That part confused me. Having someone in a Devil costume is going to be scary, confusing or offensive to many people, so if it's not a great metaphor, why not pick another one?

I think it's better to skip certain classes metaphors for this kind of event: religion, sex, death, disease (cancer, etc.) probably chief among them.

<comment><USER14> > Having someone in a Devil costume is going to be scary, confusing or > offensive to many people

No it isn't. People sell devil costumes to _children_ for Halloween. Almost no one is confused or scared by the sight of someone in a devil costume, just as almost no one is going to see someone dressed as Thor and actually likely believe the god of thunder is walking among them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't know how this situation with most WiFi hardware being FSF-hostile will ever change. People who care (be they end users, enterprises, Linux kernel developers, or distro developers) don't provide sufficient motivation to the manufacturers.

Part of the reason might be that, even if one is generally aligned with the FSF's goals, the distinction the FSF makes, _based on where the closed firmware is stored_ , isn't very compelling, IMHO. Most people need a good reason to incur the high costs of FSF-friendliness.

(I've compromised on this, myself. In 2010, the Debian Live variant utility stick distro I made bundled the `non-free` drivers, since that was already a problem then. Though I have bought FSF-friendly `ath9k` PCIe WiFi cards for my own use. And I even went through the massive headache of converting several ThinkPad X200 units to Coreboot, which let me put FSF-friendly mini-PCIe WiFi cards in them. I never would've done the latter, had I known how much work it would be.)

</comment><comment><USER16> If someone is going to an install fest, their technical skills are not very strong. Especially in this day and age where plentiful devices means not rendering your only computer inoperable, but being able to follow along with online instructions! That user's effective freedom is very low, even if they're sitting in front of a fully documented Free machine!

But they're _interested_ in taking a step in the right direction, even though they will not reap the full benefits for quite some time. This must not be squandered!

The problem here is that emphasizing the negative association still ties it to GNU/Linux - first, the presence of a visible "devil", and second the difficulty of being confronted with an overt looked-down-upon decision that is not fully understood.

Rather, people respond better to the carrot. They _should_ be informed - <USER2> might indeed have a different machine that would be a better fit for Linux. And they should walk away knowing that the machine they have is not perfect from a Freedom standpoint.

But how are they supposed to care enough to influence a purchasing decision, especially of a new machine, if we make it difficult for them to become accustomed to the benefits of Freedom? A machine loaded with all proprietary blob drivers still showcases the _results_ of Freedom quite well - similar to why there is such big business in taking Free software and locking it up with DRM/HTTP, but I digress.

In general, RMS really needs to reconsider the nuance of how he applies his philosophy to the modern world. While he has been extremely prescient and unyielding for the overall war, he keeps wanting to fight the original battle rather than many of the new fronts that have sprung up.

For example, he uses a T400 laptop - what storage device does it have? I guarantee it runs non-free firmware from flash. There is little difference between this and AMD's graphics firmware blob files, if the latter is only ever loaded under Free control. Condemning the latter because it puts the blob front and center in our faces is fundamentally a symptom of failing to flesh out the paradigm of what applied Freedom means, and without that we cannot hope to defend it!

<comment><USER17> > what storage device does it have? I guarantee it runs non-free firmware from > flash.

RMS is pretty consistently clear that software intended to be upgraded by the end user must be free. Software/firmware that is not intended to ever be changed or upgraded by the end user is more or less the same as circuitry and outside the scope of the Free Software movement.

> There is little difference between this and AMD's graphics firmware blob > files.

AMD's blobs are intended to be installed by the end user. Both the firmware that you upload to the card when you use it, or binary drivers that run on your main CPU. Those are both software that you receive and execute as an end user which is fundamentally different from the gates and firmware fused into your device.

<comment><USER16> Except that firmware isn't "fused" into your device, but simply on an undocumented flash chip - the days of windowed EPROM are long gone. So _RMS is compromising_ here, in my opinion incorrectly.

If we stop talking about a device as being "Free" but rather use the FSF's verbiage of "respects your freedom", then I would actually argue that AMD's firmware blobs are more-RYF than SSD firmware. The former I can be pretty sure AMD did a decent job at the code signing, meaning they're the only party that can use the device to disrespect my freedom. Whereas the SSD firmware interface remains more opaque, so there's a decent chance that anybody could reverse engineer the SSD and surreptitiously modify the firmware on mine to undermine my freedom!

Of course you can insulate yourself from the SSD by using full disk encryption and considering your SATA controller a security boundary. And that's my entire point - we need to evolve these definitions to incorporate this type of nuance.

<comment><USER18> I don't see a difference between RYF-ness of CPU microcode and SSD firmware. The main practical difference in the context of TFA is that distros typically bundle CPU microcode but not SSD firmware, hence the question is unlikely to come up in that context for SSD firmware, but that doesn't mean that it's not a problem.

Btw, the AMD CPU microcode _is_ fused into the CPU, otherwise it wouldn't boot; there's an additional SRAM area where the microcode update is applied; for details see [https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9614-inside_the_amd_microcode_ro...](https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9614-inside_the_amd_microcode_rom)

To elaborate on your last point, I'd always use software encryption with SSDs, because with the opaque firmware wear-leveling it's essentially impossible to be sure that anything is actually physically deleted from SSDs, and if it isn't physically deleted it can be read by a custom firmware.

<comment><USER16> I was referring to AMD's graphics cards. They have a binary firmware blob that basically _must_ be loaded, but the loading itself is done by Free software. I don't see how this is _any_ different from a RYF perspective than if AMD had put another flash chip on the BOM for storing it cold. That is, assuming a competent signature scheme for both.

So the card itself doesn't RYF, but it _can_ be used to display the output from a RYF _computer_. And unfortunately barring a better graphics option based on open firmware, these are the compromises we have to make. RMS recognizes this - I just think the manner in which he framed the compromise is a bit unnuanced and out of date. Rather than finding reasons to ignore least- worst blobs, we should be talking about boundaries between Free/non-free components.

SSDs are an interesting case, because the hard drive interface abstraction is so simple and longstanding, we just kind of assume it's a good boundary. But if you want to pop back into abstract Freedom land, imagine what the market would look like if vendors weren't able to market around decommoditizing software features. For example, if the FTL were done by Free software (perhaps on the main CPU), there would be no worries about certain lines of drives getting corrupted due to power failures!

(And yes, totally agree about FDE. I actually just changed my router back to being a general purpose Linux box, and it felt quite odd installing that with no FDE).

<comment><USER18> I'm sorry, no idea how I managed to jump from AMD GPUs to AMD CPUs :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is absolutely Cuckoo, even for RMS.

Take people, probably leaning nontechnical who have an interest in trying OSS and try to explicitly impose on them the concept that they are wrong and you are right and they are 'dealing with the devil' if they don't see things your way. They will be put off linux and the FOSS community for life.

It's not like we don't have years of evidence of what happens if you try to impose your idea of politics on someone.

If you really want people to care, then you need to introduce them slowly, and even then - without appreciating some sort of obstacle (like a technical user trying to get their wifi or graphics cards working) I'm not sure it's so easy, because most people have other priorities.

<comment><USER20> Unfortunately, this is absolutely in character for him. I also sort of hope that people try what he's suggesting since it will almost certainly backfire. It's not that I want him or the install fests to fail (I'm a big fan and user of Debian), but rather it would be nice if the hard line folks would get a clue and understand that they need to offer viable alternatives rather than telling people to 'just say no'. Maybe lines of people waiting for 'the Devil' would make that clear? (OK, probably nothing would change... but I can dream...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Yet another self-defeating idea from RMS. If someone asks for Linux, we should either give them a broken version, refuse, or give them a lecture? Sad.

<comment><USER5> Well, not exactly... the whole point of this idea is that they should provide a way for the install to be completed, but make it clear that a moral compromise is involved.

<comment><USER22> That will go really well. If there is one thing people love, it is moral conundrums related to electronic appliances.

<comment><USER23> Don't forget the people lecturing them for the full 30 minutes that they're busy installing a new OS.

<comment><USER5> At least they're getting a free computer service. One could compare it to the missions that feed and house needy people, under the condition that they also accept religious proselytization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Urgh... this is perhaps one of the worst positions for the FSF to take at this point.

This is a position you take if 10% of the desktop market was already running a mostly free operating system and APIs. (Making a distinction between GNU and Chrome OS).

Once you have enough mindshare to expose people to what Free Software, community developed software, software they can have control over (either by learning how to program or being able to pay someone to do it). Then you push to wipe out these crappy binary blobs.

At this point, with less than 1%, Microsoft could lock out every Linux user from modern hardware by refusing to sign an UEFI kernel.

Things have gotten better. Dell provides a few Linux laptops for desktop users. System76 is great... even if their machines look a little dated. Steam's Proton is a godsend.

But the Linux desktop still hasn't broken out of the a few niche areas. Chrome OS has more market share than all other desktop Linuxes. We haven't gotten past 2% and in many Asian countries we are falling behind even more.

You can't tell people they are only ethical if they use a modern laptop without working wifi. They won't care. A lot of people just don't care about technology. They just want it to work! But once you reach 10%; you have network effects people can rely on and feel confident about choosing a Free Operating System. If you point out this Free Software sticker means it works better for Linux/BSD/Haiku because you have control over the code that runs your wifi/whatever, then people will care.

</comment><comment><USER25> > My new idea is that the install fest could allow the devil to hang around, > off in a corner of the hall, or the next room. (Actually, a human being > wearing sign saying "The Devil," and maybe a toy mask or horns.) The devil > would offer to install nonfree drivers in the user's machine to make more > parts of the computer function ...

Oh, but this should only be suitable if it's done with FreeBSD and not some Gnuuh-slash-leenacks.

</comment><comment><USER22> The degree to which Richard Stallman lives on another planet, entirely divorced from the reality of human behavior, cannot be overstated.

We can't even get people to ditch facebook when it is obviously and actively harmful to them on almost every dimension because people simply do not care. The idea that any of them would futz around trying to compile drivers from source code is ludicrous.

</comment><comment><USER26> This problem is why I use [https://fiendish.github.io/The-Debian-Gotham- Needs/](https://fiendish.github.io/The-Debian-Gotham-Needs/) for downloading Debian ISOs, because I know that I'm going to need nonfree firmware for it to actually do the things that I want it to do (and finding the right ISO on the Debian website is a godawful nightmare).

I think the page takes the most rational approach by informing the person about the danger to user freedoms imposed by non-free software while, and this is very important, letting the person just get on with their life right now.

Stallman's proposal sounds...cartoonish and annoying and IMO ultimately harmful. I think the only way to get people who aren't already dedicated to want to use free software is if using it doesn't make them annoyed first.

<comment><USER27> How is it a nightmare? The site you linked literally just links to one of the images under here [https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd- in...](https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including- firmware) , and not even the most useful one. It'd be more appropriate to link to the multi-arch image because there are many Bay Trail era devices stuck with a wonky 32 bit UEFI / 64 bit processor combination.

<comment><USER26> > _How is it a nightmare?_

Explain how to get from [https://debian.org](https://debian.org) to the right download link. Measure how many clicks it involves, how much knowing exactly the right thing to look for it involves, how many paragraphs you have to wade through, how much backtracking if you go down the not obviously wrong but still wrong nonetheless path it involves. Can you even get to it from the "Get Debian" page without halting a download, truncating the url, and then digging around in a directory tree? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. In short, take yourself outside of your "I already know the right answer" head and approach it from someone else's perspective. The fact that your answer is "just use this arcane url that doesn't mean anything, is hard or impossible to find from the landing page even for an experienced person, and also isn't unambiguously googlable without exactly the right techno jargon" is striking to me.

The Debian onboarding experience for normal people is terrible.

> _It 'd be more appropriate to link to the multi-arch image because there are > many..._

I disagree with your use of the word "many" and its relevance and whether multiarch solves more problems than it causes, but I acknowledge your beliefs. ( * shrug * )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Ugh, I think you get to pick between "strict purity" and something other than strict purity -- you can't have both. You can't deliberately tolerate something you deem to be devilish without becoming morally soiled by it. You can't perform an act that you call evil, or tolerate and implicitly encourage the act, and then in the next breath condemn it.

Either you have to maintain strict purity, or you have to acknowledge on some level that real life is not especially compatible with strict purity, and sometimes compromise is, at a minimum, necessary and to some degree desirable.

There's no logical way around this, and trying to force there to be a logical way around it gives you this kind of wink wink, nod nod, say-no-more sort of idea.

</comment><comment><USER29> What distro are they installing at an install fest? I assume the users going to these would typically be in the lower half of the tech savviness distribution. So a user friendly distro like Ubuntu or Mint would make sense, but they include non-free coode in them.

If they install some weird hobby distro, that doesn't have a large community around it to help support users I'd expect to scare users entirely away from Linux.

<comment><USER30> And those distros usually have a checkbox on their installation wizards asking whether or not you want to install non-free software.

[https://www.2daygeek.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/ubuntu-1...](https://www.2daygeek.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/ubuntu-15-04-installation-steps-screenshot-3.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is "install fest" actually a thing? I thought people just download whatever OS they want to install these days...?

<comment><USER32> It was a thing in the 90s.

Is it still a thing? I don't know. Probably on college campuses, organized by comp sci majors.</comment></comment>