[Dev] [consensus] Features vs. Privacy in nonprism repo

[Alejandro Hernández]

El 2016-10-04 18:36, Joshua Haase escribió:
> Luke <g4jc at openmailbox.org> writes:
> 
>> _- So this puts the nonprism projects at a crossroads. Do we want to
>> favour accessibility and "features" over "privacy"?_
> 
> I think non-prism should be expected to favour privacy and break sites
> where needed.
> 
>> From my personal opinion, nonprism should provide security and privacy
>> by default. Users can choose to opt-out of nonprism if they wish. This
>> is easily done by A) not using nonprism, or B) using about:config 
>> and/or
>> user.js to override the settings.
> 
> I'd rather have nonprism as opt-in.
> 
> When using Parabola GNU/Linux-libre you customize your system and it's
> trivial to change your packages from [libre] to [nonprism].
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.parabola.nu
> https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev



[PCR repo]

I don't understand why libre-software packages, apparently respectful 
with user rights and stable are not available for all users. 🤔 That's 
why I think 'PCR' repository should be activated by default. And if they 
are unstable packages, they should go into another repo like 
'pcr-testing'.



[nonprism repo]

Libre Software is not only about a license, but about respect for user 
rights. That's why we use it and we've all previously decided that 
rights are before than features. We want to take advantage of such 
features (like ubication) but not at cost of giving this info to others 
who use it against users.

Nonprism packages replace other packages in the same way that libre 
packages do. So I think 'nonprism' repo should also be activated by 
default.


Thanks,