cmhe

• Just as some Firefox users like Firefox, many Chrome users enjoy what they have too. They don't want to lose that.

Do you have some source for that? IIUC, you mean that more Chrome users like Chrome than Firefox users like Firefox, right?

So generally the pro of coreboot is that it is open source, but the con is that it is open source.

What I mean by that, you can fix any issues yourself, however, if you are unable to do it yourself, you have to wait until someone does it for you and often what features are available and stable are a hit and miss.

Compared to proprietary bioses, the company has some kind of standardized process for developing the bios. So you often get want you would expect. However, if the money flow from the pc vendor to the bios vendor drys up, you, or the community of owners. will not be able to fix any issues.

Linux support should be the same, regardless if you choose proprietary or open source bios. But that depends on how well the coreboot was ported to the platform. So officially supported coreboot bioses are likely better than others.

Personally, if all other attributes are equal, would go with coreboot, because I like to support vendors that offer that choice, and IMO a open source solution, that you can review and build yourself is intrinsically more secure than a binary blob, where you have to blindly trust some corporation. But other security minded people might disagree, which is fine.

Well, in Germany there aren't even pan-country deposit systems in place. You often have to find a store where you can buy that bottle for them to accept it.

See In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II

Enterprise did it before IIRC.

IT guys will stop using it...

No, they will not, if they didn't already. Because convenience it key.

The browser war is over, and humans lost, corporations won. Google and other huge corporations control the biggest websites and most of the access to content on the internet.

They just need to make it inconvenient to use ad-blocking browsers.

They built their business on advertiser gambling, which seem to be flawed concept, because they keep on squeezing that tube for every penny more and more, in a race to the bottom.

But they are still in control of both browers and content so they have options to keep squeezing more.

So you want to use a ad blocker? Well, the browser that supports them might not be white listed (anymore) by the bot detector, and you have to solve captchas on every site you visit, until you come to your senses and use a browser, where ad blocking is no longer possible.

Oh, and all that is ok, because of "security". Because letting the users be in control of their devices and applications is "in-secure". They are just doing that to protect you from spam and scams, just trust them! Trust them, because they don't trust you!

That is how capitalism works, privatize earning and nationalize losses.

Capitalism needs the deep pockets of the government to not collapse into itself.

Exactly.

All I can point out that I don't see the a body moving, not breathing, no pulse and not reacting to external stimuli, all facts, but wherever or not this state is called "dead", I can decide for myself, and groups of people will have a final say on. Other groups might disagree, politics might be involved, maybe the issue will be settled, maybe not. I, as an individual cannot say how the outcome will be.

Hence, you are making it political. Like you yourself said, politics in itself a construct, not a natural force.

Wherever something is or isn't political is decided by the society, all I can do is point out potential issues, but that is not "making it political", just like pointing to something that is dead, doesn't suddenly makes it die. No it was dead before.

Granted, government policy affects peoples' wellbeing, which can definitely affect their political views, but making the jump to "everything is political" feels like a stretch?

Granted, maybe I was a bit too fast there. This should be better: "Everything has the potential to become political, as decided by the society."

Someone alone cannot decide what is or isn't politics. They need a couple of other people believing it too. But they can try to convince them. But software development most surely is, because it touches a lot of stuff, that many people think is political, even before getting into CoCs and used jargon.

Yeah but everything can become anything with enough effort. Everything can be violence too for example. Everything can be nothing. Everything can be food (at least once).

Maybe, but politics even stretches to thoughts and constructs. "Ideas" and "Hope" are politics.

Those cannot become food in a physical sense.

"Politic" is in itself a construct. Not something physical.

Doesn't change that something can be created without political intention, thought etc, no different than a sad poem written wasn't created with nihilistic purposes even though it could possibly be applied to nihilism.

Right, things can be created without thinking of politics or with a political intention/motivation, as I said, but they still be political.

Politics is everything where some kind of discourse or debate happens, where something can be judged and assessed, about how power should be handled and influenced.

At that point, it's you that's making something political, not the thing itself being political.

Well, I don't think you can "make something political", everything that exists can be perceived and analyzed from different perspectives, one of which is its impact on the society, which is a political viewpoint. And pointing that perspective out to others is not "making it political". It is about pointing out and making aware of an attribute that thing already has, wherever it was intended by the creator or not.

Wherever that raised a valid concern, is correct, or noteworthy is another topic.

Well, even if something isn't created "politically motivated" it can still be or become political.

What license do you choose? What platform do you choose to distribute it? What operating system do you support? What programming language and library dependencies do you have? On which platform do you manage your community or communicate with your customers or users? What feature do you add, or dismiss when writing the software. Etc. All of these are, or can become political issues.

Even if you decide to not release it for the public and keep it to yourself, can be a political issue. The mere existence of something can create a imbalance of capabilities, e.g. people with access to the software have advantages over people with no access to it, which can be political.

Even the mere fact that you possessed the resources, knowledge and time to create software can be or is political.

IMO, I would say everything is or can become a political issue. It just depends if there is some public interest and discourse. The intention or motivation of the developer doesn't matter.