I think at worst we simply have different preferences for how our free desktops should approach security, not that I "don't want a free OS," and I'm extremely tired of people like you dimissing people that disagree with you about how a free desktop operating system should work as simply not being true Scotsman — not wanting "true freedom" or something — it's very frustrating and it makes nobody want to deal with you.
I want programs on my computer to ask for my consent for access to anything that might be nefarious or personal. I don't want to have to rely on a small group of people who have decided they are qualified to choose what software is safe to run and insert themselves between me and the people who developed the software I actually use to introduce arbitrary patches and remove or add arbitrary features. This is a big part of why I refuse to use Debian ever. Instead, I want a system that is self-sufficiently secure.
You want programs to have access to absolutely everything on your computer by default, except the random selection of largely not relevant tasks allocated to the root user, and want to go through the effort of sandboxing manually when you don't trust something. You're fine with relying on a small group of maintainers deciding what software is and isn't safe for you to install and protect you from upstream bad features.
I want a system that is secure by default and has good defaults for that security, and you want a system that requires you to go through extra hoops to make things secure if you want them and you'll probably never actually do that because it's so inconvenient and manual to actually make things secure.
These seem not like on the one hand the requirements for an appliance and on the other hand the requirements for a free desktop and more like different preferences for a free desktop environment.
> A) no it doesn't
Then you are living in fantasy land. I would prefer my desktop operating systems to actually be useful in the real world. I fundamentally do not understand and reject this idea that on a free desktop offering system, somehow by virtue of being free software, you'll only be running open to our software or software you trust ever, and that somehow by virtue of being an appliance, that suddenly means people will run untrusted software. Those things aren't inherently related and it doesn't make sense to pretend they are.
> Also the companies paying those developers (mainly Red-Hat) would very much like to sell you an appliance rather than a desktop OS.
Ah, I see you're one of those conspiracy theorists. I think I'll back out of this discussion now — I've had one too many experiences with such.
I think at worst we simply have different preferences for how our free desktops should approach security, not that I "don't want a free OS," and I'm extremely tired of people like you dimissing people that disagree with you about how a free desktop operating system should work as simply not being true Scotsman — not wanting "true freedom" or something — it's very frustrating and it makes nobody want to deal with you.
I want programs on my computer to ask for my consent for access to anything that might be nefarious or personal. I don't want to have to rely on a small group of people who have decided they are qualified to choose what software is safe to run and insert themselves between me and the people who developed the software I actually use to introduce arbitrary patches and remove or add arbitrary features. This is a big part of why I refuse to use Debian ever. Instead, I want a system that is self-sufficiently secure.
You want programs to have access to absolutely everything on your computer by default, except the random selection of largely not relevant tasks allocated to the root user, and want to go through the effort of sandboxing manually when you don't trust something. You're fine with relying on a small group of maintainers deciding what software is and isn't safe for you to install and protect you from upstream bad features.
I want a system that is secure by default and has good defaults for that security, and you want a system that requires you to go through extra hoops to make things secure if you want them and you'll probably never actually do that because it's so inconvenient and manual to actually make things secure.
These seem not like on the one hand the requirements for an appliance and on the other hand the requirements for a free desktop and more like different preferences for a free desktop environment.
> A) no it doesn't
Then you are living in fantasy land. I would prefer my desktop operating systems to actually be useful in the real world. I fundamentally do not understand and reject this idea that on a free desktop offering system, somehow by virtue of being free software, you'll only be running open to our software or software you trust ever, and that somehow by virtue of being an appliance, that suddenly means people will run untrusted software. Those things aren't inherently related and it doesn't make sense to pretend they are.
> Also the companies paying those developers (mainly Red-Hat) would very much like to sell you an appliance rather than a desktop OS.
Ah, I see you're one of those conspiracy theorists. I think I'll back out of this discussion now — I've had one too many experiences with such.