Re: Documentation of what is appropriate for #guix?

[elais@fastmail.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4415 bytes --]

> If we were to set up a separate relaxed Guix
> community that accommodates all forms of corruption, one problem would be the impediments that would exist in communication, especially if the original Guix takes hostile and non-compromising attitude, I think.

The discussion at hand is about clarifying what is on topic new channel users, not relaxing a commitment to not promote non free software. A few seconds of searching will almost definitely turn up alternatives if that’s what you’re looking for. That being said I think it would be helpful to add a few sentences to the chat on irc page[1] that clearly state that discussion of non free software is off topic and discouraged in the Channel. I think it will also help if we add the same message to the contacts page[2] as well.

1. https://guix.gnu.org/en/contact/irc/
2. https://guix.gnu.org/contact/


-- Elais Player

On Feb 22, 2022, 04:48 -0700, Yasuaki Kudo <yasu@yasuaki.com>, wrote:
> If we were to set up a separate relaxed Guix community that accommodates all forms of corruption, one problem would be the impediments that would exist in communication, especially if the original Guix takes hostile and non-compromising attitude, I think.
>
> If a question arises from that downgraded community how to do this and that, precisely to accommodate some unaccountable  binary black box software, the chances of getting helpful answers may not be so high from the original Guix community. 😅
>
> It is a difficult question - even in the real world the similarities abound.   While it is easy to ignore and isolate North Korea, a country that offers no useful commodity for export (or maybe it does, but let's say, for the sake of argument), countries like Japan have no problem importing Saudi Arabian oil. Ethics and human rights are thrown out the window - oil is considered far more important.
>
> I tend to take the position of strategically 'not caring'  (e.g. https://youtu.be/Blz_Eu00Kbw )
>
> Maybe someone like me is called a Libertarian?  I am not sure... (for the record, my political philosophy seems to be called Anarcho-Syndicalism 😄)
>
> But I still think a parallel community might be in order 😄
>
> -Yasu
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 2022, at 07:36, Paul Jewell <paul@teulu.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 21 Feb 2022, at 19:10, raingloom <raingloom@riseup.net>
> >
> > > By the way, I think it's kind of silly that that is completely banned
> > > from discussion. When I wanted help on getting my GPU to work, I
> > > mentioned for reference purposes that I tried the proprietary driver
> > > from The Forbidden Channel - and was subsequently warned that I must
> > > not do that.
> >
> > I understand that the position taken by guix is more nuanced than that. The project doesn’t seek to control what you run on your computer, but won’t support your choice to run non-free software in the official channels.
> >
> > > Which I find ridiculous. You can't even discuss results
> > > obtained by running closed source drivers and firmware, so how do you
> > > debug the libre firmwares and drivers, when you have nothing to compare
> > > against?
> > But you can discuss these results elsewhere.
> >
> > > Also, I think people who want to overwhelmingly use free software but
> > > need proprietary drivers for their computer to function should be
> > > offered better help than "buy a new computer".
> >
> > I kind of agree with you here. I don’t want to obsolete perfectly viable hardware, but instead want to use it for its whole life. Next time I am in the market for new hardware, then I will have the ability to run libre-software as a pre-condition for purchase.
> >
> > > I think The Forbidden Channel should be raised to a status similar to
> > > the AUR: it's recognized and its existence is documented, but all
> > > responsibility is very explicitly disclaimed and support is relegated
> > > to special channels.
> >
> > Users will find it even the way it is configured today. I don’t think it needs any sort of official recognition or promotion, as that will go against the project goals/rules (as I understand it). We should always be aware of the insidious nature of proprietary firmware/software, and work to eliminate the need for it, rather than indicating that its use is acceptable as a first choice.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Paul

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6862 bytes --]