GNU bug report logs - #46385
User awareness of Anti-Features

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 46385 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: soheil <at> disroot.org
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: User awareness of Anti-Features
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 13:28:40 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Users should be aware of anti-feature of packages.
It is best to have anti-feature tag in anti-feature packages so that user know which program has anti-features; Like F-Droid. Also, user should be aware of anti-feature during installation. And wherever this awareness is needed...

An example is Telegram, Telegram is a program that user connects to a proprietary server, and users who know less about computer softwares, are not aware of the anti-feature.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #8 received at 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: soheil <at> disroot.org, 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46385: User awareness of Anti-Features
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:38:36 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 13:28 +0000, soheil--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
> Users should be aware of anti-feature of packages.
> It is best to have anti-feature tag in anti-feature packages so that user know
>  which program has anti-features; Like F-Droid. Also, user should be aware of
> anti-feature during installation. And wherever this awareness is needed...
> 
> An example is Telegram, Telegram is a program that user connects to a
> proprietary server, and users who know less about computer softwares,
> are not aware of the anti-feature.

I'll have to think some more on whether this is something Guix needs, but I
do have a partial concrete implementation proposal:

Packages can have a ‘properties’ field, e.g. from gnu/packages/bioconductors.scm:

(define-public r-reactome-db
  (package
    (name "r-reactome-db")
    (version "1.70.0")
    [...]
    (properties `((upstream-name . "reactome.db")))))

Maybe add a ‘anti-features’ entry field for some packages?
E.g.,

(define-public some-twitter-app
  (package
   (name "tweet")
   [...]
   (properties `((anti-features x y z)))))

x, y and z can be symbols, e.g. based upon from https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Anti-Features/

* ads (I don't think any application in Guix has these?)
* tracking (should be patched out if possible)
* non-free-network-services
* non-free-dependencies (probably not allowed in upstream Guix, but maybe in a channel)

The code behind ‘guix show’ and ‘guix search’ would need to
be adjusted to display anti-features, and the ‘guix install’ code
should warn if someone installs a package with anti-features.

Greetings,
Maxime

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #11 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: soheil--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46385: User awareness of Anti-Features
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 11:53:09 -0500

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 01:28:40PM +0000, soheil--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
> Users should be aware of anti-feature of packages.
> It is best to have anti-feature tag in anti-feature packages so that user know which program has anti-features; Like F-Droid. Also, user should be aware of anti-feature during installation. And wherever this awareness is needed...

I use F-Droid, but I dislike their "anti-feature" messaging. It's not
clear to me that it's an example we should follow.

Message #17 received at 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Cc: soheil <at> disroot.org, 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46385: User awareness of Anti-Features
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:22:34 +0100

Hi,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be> skribis:

> I'll have to think some more on whether this is something Guix needs, but I
> do have a partial concrete implementation proposal:
>
> Packages can have a ‘properties’ field, e.g. from gnu/packages/bioconductors.scm:
>
> (define-public r-reactome-db
>   (package
>     (name "r-reactome-db")
>     (version "1.70.0")
>     [...]
>     (properties `((upstream-name . "reactome.db")))))
>
> Maybe add a ‘anti-features’ entry field for some packages?
> E.g.,
>
> (define-public some-twitter-app
>   (package
>    (name "tweet")
>    [...]
>    (properties `((anti-features x y z)))))
>
> x, y and z can be symbols, e.g. based upon from https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Anti-Features/
>
> * ads (I don't think any application in Guix has these?)
> * tracking (should be patched out if possible)
> * non-free-network-services
> * non-free-dependencies (probably not allowed in upstream Guix, but maybe in a channel)
>
> The code behind ‘guix show’ and ‘guix search’ would need to
> be adjusted to display anti-features, and the ‘guix install’ code
> should warn if someone installs a package with anti-features.

I’m sympathetic with the idea of raising awareness of those
anti-features.  However, I don’t see a clear way we could “define” each
possible anti-feature; some are definitely ill-defined (for instance, a
service is neither “free” nor “non-free” in the same sense as software
can be free or non-free.)  It’s also not entirely clear to me how the UI
could make good use of it.

That said, there are anti-features that we have always patched out in
the past, such as tracking/“phoning home” and auto-upgrades.  Perhaps we
could formalize that in our packaging guidelines?

Ludo’.

Message #20 received at 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: soheil <at> disroot.org, Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>,
 46385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46385: User awareness of Anti-Features
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 17:12:42 -0400

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>> * ads (I don't think any application in Guix has these?)
>> * tracking (should be patched out if possible)
>> * non-free-network-services
>> * non-free-dependencies (probably not allowed in upstream Guix, but maybe in a channel)
>>
>> The code behind ‘guix show’ and ‘guix search’ would need to
>> be adjusted to display anti-features, and the ‘guix install’ code
>> should warn if someone installs a package with anti-features.
>
> I’m sympathetic with the idea of raising awareness of those
> anti-features.  However, I don’t see a clear way we could “define” each
> possible anti-feature; some are definitely ill-defined (for instance, a
> service is neither “free” nor “non-free” in the same sense as software
> can be free or non-free.)  It’s also not entirely clear to me how the UI
> could make good use of it.

I agree.  It's not well defined, and to me following the FSDG seems an
already good warranty that you're getting only free software from a
project dedicated to fixing any freedom issues that may be discovered.

> That said, there are anti-features that we have always patched out in
> the past, such as tracking/“phoning home” and auto-upgrades.  Perhaps we
> could formalize that in our packaging guidelines?

It'd be good to have this documented, indeed.

Thanks,

Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.