Just because something is built out of love does not make it safe, and attestation is about safety. You wouldn’t trust an un-attested surgical device, just because there’s a really positive community around its design.

Signal is a life-or-death app for some people.

Yeah, it was frustrating because using Ubuntu for gaming on it was the main reason I got the laptop, but I couldn’t deal with changing launch options in steam every time I rebooted. Hasn’t soured me on Linux gaming, still hoping for that bright future. :)

I admin linux systems all day at work, and in my spare time on my home lab rackmount setup that lives in the spare bathroom, and I say that to make clear that I’m extremely comfortable with Linux. I got a gaming laptop recently and loaded Ubuntu onto it, and was very underwhelmed with the gaming performance on it. My SteamDeck ran many of the games better, and there were a bunch issues with the OS not being able to keep the integrated graphics card vs the discrete one straight (e.g. switching the load order on reboot, making games constantly try to run on the integrated card), that just made me eventually give up and put Win11 on it. At this point, I’d love for Valve to release a “SteamLap” gaming system, because clearly Linux needs that tight control over the hardware config to get games working well.

For a minute I thought QuickTime was back…

Lemmy is not enriching the data you put on it with data that Lemmy purchases from third parties, in order to create a user-product to sell to advertisers. Meta and Discord are (obviously Meta much moreso). That’s why advertisers buy from them instead of just scraping your posts themselves.

Thanks for this writeup! I’ve been interested in Graphene for a long time, but I don’t buy phones very often, and I’ve never owned a Pixel phone, so I have to enjoy it vicariously.

I actually use Vim to write all my code, but without IDE-ifying it, just syntax highlighting and some navigation tweaks (with Sublime3 for help with bulk edits). For most of my stuff an IDE is overkill.

I was just being facetious by suggesting another commandline editor. ;P

Yeah, like Vim. Who uses nano to code?

This is just an extension of the larger issue of people not understanding how AI works, and trusting it too much.

AI is and has always been about exchanging accuracy for speed. It excels in cases where slow, methodical work is not given sufficient time already, because the accuracy is already low(er) as a result (e.g. overworked doctors examining CT scans).

But it should never be treated as the final word on something; it’s the first ~70%.

I’ve heard weird claims like the FSF and OSI don’t [have] a monopoly on the definition of what’s FS or OSS.

I’m part of that group. If OSI and FSF want to control the definition of something, they should make new and unique terms, not just attempt to take over a concept that predates both of them. (Interestingly, OSI’s website claims no one used “open source” to talk about software before 1998, and that’s patently not true; I remember seeing people use that in IRC channels back in the early 90s). If I came along tomorrow and said, “my org now controls the definition of ‘downloadable software’,” people would tell me to sod off. Even worse “Open Source” and “Free” are both terms with plain-English meanings (which most people naturally assume to be what people are calling “source available”, in OSS’s case). Trying to impose centralized control over a simple phrase isn’t really in line with the collaborative, community-led spirit of the FOSS community, imho

Call it OSI-Approved Zero-Restriction Licensing or something.

Any project… should compete on their own merit, rather than riding and exploiting the world’s preference for FOSS.

Funny, that’s how I feel about OSI stepping in to claim control of that term.

Just want to reiterate - it’s ok as long as it starts as such, instead of doing a bait and switch.

I agree with this for existing projects, absolutely.

I felt like I was going crazy sometimes with how often people in the FOSS community insist that nothing is wrong when large companies are massively profiting off of unpaid labor that is meant to help people, by turning it into part of their closed-source product, so it’s nice to see that well-known figures in the community are starting to wake up to this being a problem.

I think that non-commercial-use clauses are a good way forward for certain projects, and commercial licenses for others. I wish that the upstream contrib requirements had taken off, but clearly Capitalism and the FOSS mindset aren’t compatible, and capitalism is more widespread.

If you let corporations have something for free, they’ll find some way to ruin it.

your landlord (the provider) takes care of all the maintenance

this is a dirty lie :P

How has CDDA not been mentioned?

Yes, the old “hebephilia is not pedophilia, and is normal” shtick.

Obviously yes, there is a very big (biological) difference between sexual attraction to pubescent vs pre-pubescent persons.

That has nothing to do with the Age of Consent, which is a legal standard set in order to account for social dynamics (power dynamics, education differences, etc) that also factor into consent, which is most of the situations he’s talking about, e.g. Roy Moore.

If Stallman wants to do the whole, “there’s no difference between being attracted to a 17-and-364-days year-old and an 18 year-old” bit, I don’t think anyone would care outside of the fact that being hung up on that when you’re not yourself in that dating range just makes you seem creepy. When you’re 18, that discussion is much more relevant. Not so much at Stallman’s age.

But him clearly talking more about the 13-14 year old range, where even someone going through puberty is much closer to pre-pubescent than post-pubescent, just makes him seem like he’s actually a pedophile who wants a loophole.

To be fair, it’s much easier to write some sed commands in a bash script that will convert between markdown formats, than something that will migrate databases.

I was referring to the post about Grayjay. But yes, terraform is just more proof that this is a very real threat to the OSS ecosystem, and that OSS providers need to start thinking about protecting their software from being seized and monetized by large companies whose preexisting install base can muscle the actual developers out.

It’s funny, because there was a post about some company calling themselves Open Source but putting a restriction on downstream monetization of their code, and commenters here were adamant that this was unacceptable, and that, contrary to what I said, big companies would TOTALLY NEVER just decide that they owned an open source project by slapping their own license on top, and declare that others couldn’t use it as they like… OH LOOK.

Whether you like it or not, the only real means that exists in the US to legally prevent a company like RedHat or any other big companies from saying, “your code is mine now, fight me in court if you don’t like it”, is to have registered copyright ownership over it. With that, it’s open-shut. Without that, you’re looking at years-long court battles over how much legal weight your OSS license holds.

Or maybe, for reasons, license rights of those organized contributors are ceded to an organization like the FSF en masse, and that organization files a copyright violation lawsuit.

FOSS as people like to imagine it is very much based on people acting in good faith, and the bad-faith actors not having the resources to torpedo the system. We’re seeing here what happens when they do.

My issue is with the fact that FUTO wishes to have exclusive rights to monetise Grayjay. The public should have the right to vote with their wallets on who they want to maintain their software. If someone else can do a better job than FUTO, why should he not get paid? Yes, FUTO are the ones who spent money upfront to develop Grayjay in the first place, but they are also the ones from whom people will be buying at first. No one is going to pay Bob instead just because he changed the icon. But if FUTO were to drop the ball at some point in the future and Bob were to pick it up, why should Bob not be able to get paid?

Because there are companies who would to pay no dev costs, slap their branding on something, and monetize it, but who will also use their market clout (or walled garden control) to not provide a better product, but just make buying it from the actual developers less convenient, or limit interoperability with the original product.

We do not live in a world of conscientious consumers who will go out of their way to pay the developers who actually made something, we live in a world where whoever’s version is at the top of the app store gets the most downloads.

No one is going to pay Bob instead just because he changed the icon.

This is just ridiculously naive. When Bob is actually named ‘Amazon’, ‘Microsoft’, ‘Google’, etc, people will trust them more than random app developer company.

Windows has never been distributed under a source available license. Grayjay has. The distinction of legal liability still persists.

Grayjay cannot sue you for distributing the source code for free.

Microsoft can, for Windows.