it must be impprsnt if you’re prioritizing it over yet i software freedom
Yes, getting machines that cost over ten thousand dollars and are crucial for research working is indeed more important than a flawed philosophical attachment to Linux.
But hey, if “software freedom” is so important to you, I’m curious to see how you disabled the mandatory proprietary management engine inside your CPU. And how about flashing that motherboard BIOS with open firmware? Which BIOS recorder chip did you use? Man, it must be so tiresome only using websites whose servers open source their code…
Oh, wait, no, you too use proprietary software on a daily basis. It’s just that the argument only works when criticizing somebody else’s needs right? Gotcha.
Hopefully a reinstall is the most you ever need and there is no chance Microsoft would ever happen to make changes that shaft you.
Software freedom is about being in control over your own computing. If being in control of your research and the results is important then I think it should be important to you too.
I consider myself like a smoker telling you smoking causes cancer in regards to my use of proprietary software. I am proud of the efforts I’ve made over the years to reduce using proprietary software.
Can’t be in control of your own computing if you can’t do your computing at all. From their responses, it’s clear that Linux is not supported for hardware essential to their workflow. How is this difficult to understand?
There is no misunderstanding there. For free software alternatives to be created you need people to want it and contribute to creating it (not just software). It’s not obvious to me they lament the lack of free software alternatives and their lack of control over their important computing.
I hope you’ve got backup solution if Windows ever prevents you from working.
It must be important if you’re prioritizing it over your software freedom…
Reinstalling Windows on another machine?
Yes, getting machines that cost over ten thousand dollars and are crucial for research working is indeed more important than a flawed philosophical attachment to Linux.
But hey, if “software freedom” is so important to you, I’m curious to see how you disabled the mandatory proprietary management engine inside your CPU. And how about flashing that motherboard BIOS with open firmware? Which BIOS recorder chip did you use? Man, it must be so tiresome only using websites whose servers open source their code…
Oh, wait, no, you too use proprietary software on a daily basis. It’s just that the argument only works when criticizing somebody else’s needs right? Gotcha.
Hopefully a reinstall is the most you ever need and there is no chance Microsoft would ever happen to make changes that shaft you.
Software freedom is about being in control over your own computing. If being in control of your research and the results is important then I think it should be important to you too.
I consider myself like a smoker telling you smoking causes cancer in regards to my use of proprietary software. I am proud of the efforts I’ve made over the years to reduce using proprietary software.
Can’t be in control of your own computing if you can’t do your computing at all. From their responses, it’s clear that Linux is not supported for hardware essential to their workflow. How is this difficult to understand?
There is no misunderstanding there. For free software alternatives to be created you need people to want it and contribute to creating it (not just software). It’s not obvious to me they lament the lack of free software alternatives and their lack of control over their important computing.