On 07/05/17 15:07, Ben Finney wrote: > Andrew McGlashan > <[email protected]> > I don't know. Given the number of devices in most smartphones that > require binary blobs, I would think it safe to say what I did: that the > ZeroPhone is a hell of a lot more open.
Fair. >> Oh and I agree with the rest of your post, but we need the better >> alternatives to go close to what is available otherwise in features, >> specs and performance; or at least enough to make the devices still >> useful. > > Yes. Those alternatives only get better by sustained, widespread, vocal > demand and funding, from people who say in public they're demanding and > funding a device *because* it is more open. > > Waiting for them to get better *before* deciding whether to support > them, is just leaving it to the existing market. Which is what gets us > where we are today, so is not a solution. True. It is an awful catch 22 situation, but you still don't want to throw away money on things that aren't going to be useful enough to you unless you are doing it simply to make a donation AND you can afford to do so. A.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
