I felt strong aversion and irritation throughout, thinking they were unnecessarily making enemies.

They certainly have an extreme view and goal. And are personally invested to the point of seeing fellow collaborators on FOSS as enemies(?) now.

Putting up barriers through segmentation and alternative tech creates silos. To reach new people I don’t think we can get around meeting users where they are and what they are familiar with.

Bring value through FOSS, and hint and nudge them. If you meet them where they are and bring them to your software it’s already one more than none. You don’t need to get them to make a huge leap into a whole ecosystem of alternative software at once.

Their categorical dismissal of other’s opinions or priorities certainly felt irritating to me. Maybe they care more about FOSS license than UX or features, but why is that the only correct view in their eyes? Blind users may not even be able to use FOSS alternatives when they lack accessibility features or quality.

Even as a contributor to a project I don’t want to use a supportive side platform only for that when it’s annoying or cumbersome. I very well may just skip it, or leave as a contributor.

I would have been interested in the premise; why they think advocating and exclusively FOSS is the only correct view and thing to do. The lack of a strong basis also made all that followed more irritating.

Yes, I do. What info are you looking for? You didn’t even say.

I know the Mumble and SoftEther VPN projects use them for hosting their website/project hosting.

Microsoft maintains a modern fork of Mono runtime in the dotnet/runtime repo and has been progressively moving workloads to that fork. That work is now complete, and we recommend that active Mono users and maintainers of Mono-based app frameworks migrate to .NET which includes work from this fork.

What’s left for the mono project then? What’s Wine’s interest in it?

The reasons for this shift in budget away from funding Free Software and the NGI initiative seems to be an allocation of more funds for AI, leaving internet infrastructure by the wayside. Meanwhile, the EC has thus far declined to comment to share its official reasoning for striking this funding from its budget.

Investing into AI seems/feels more speculative and inefficient. I think you can get a lot more value by investing the same into actual, practical projects. Training AI, and training it well, is very expensive. And the gains or results are not necessarily even predictable, let alone certainly useful or used.

Notepad++, local files

They’re also very open and transparent. Work, guidelines, workflows, etc.

It’s a shining example of an alternative kind of company, and it’s insightful and a great resource of information.

The original text had ‘he’ where ‘it’ was correct. Which supports part of your premise.

They also merged a change request that changed those instances alongside ‘they’ instances. I don’t know if the original author and denier was involved, but it’s certainly important context missing from OP blog post.

the whole point behind it was them making an assumption about something

What makes you think the change suggesters assumed ill intent?

The submitted PRs seem to reason improvement, not accuse the original author. I see them suggesting a change, neutrally. With (minimal) objective reasoning.

/edit: I see the later ones did. But the first one didn’t. And the second one arguably didn’t.

If your content doesn’t fit on the platforms limit, why not post on a platform intended for or accepting such content?

This form is quite irritating to read.

Microsoft word?

Adding to

The value of Bitcoin has only increased over time

???

And not only a bit. A fall from 67 to 16.

The only way to meaningfully advocate for it after your company already announced their conditions and offerings is to present value gain.

What do you suggest concretely? What should be offered under what conditions? What would that mean as cost? What would the benefit be? How substantial is it?

Reaching out privately to them is certainly going beyond what you are employed for. I don’t know about ill-advised - if you never disclose it or are at least mindful of that. But it’s a personal assessment. You seem to be willing to invest a lot into a single customer, who tries to do something not offered or considered by the company. Whether it’s personal interest, or first a broader better understanding of the use case, I can see how it could be worth or worthwhile. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up about changing the opinions of your company [from their information alone].

Your company offered API access. So there is an interface available. They won’t make it free unless they see and deem it worth it to do so.

A block on Twitter doesn’t say anything unless you know why they were blocked and know the person. Blocking can be more than warranted and justified. Be it spam, toxicity, harassment, or similar things. “I saw a screenshot of someone being blocked on Twitter” is not a good foundation for an argument.

They talk about malware in npm packages. One example isn’t enough to make a general claim that all software with political opinions or voices becomes malware.

When a platform follows sanctions, and the law, I don’t think you can claim them to be political and activism decisions. If you want to make that argument and want to do so in an absolutist fashion (not assess and reduce risks but evade them entirely), then you can only self-host and I guess on your own servers? No platforms, no services?

Nowadays, there are many teams who buy popular apps and browser extensions to inject malware.

… which has nothing to do with political views and especially not political views of the original authors and sellers.

As you can see, the “opinion” or “political view” of a company is not only a way to hype on sanctions and curry favor with investors, the government, and consumers, but it is also a clear signal about potential threats. It signals that your sensitive data may be hijacked, sold, or wiped anytime if the political compass spins tomorrow and recognizes you as an enemy.

No. None of what was written before showed me any of that.

Some of the red flags I actively use to reject software:

Direct political opinions in a product’s blog, like “we support X” or “we are against X”

“We are free software and we support free software” -> REJECTED! (?)

Some people don’t like gore

Poor people whose first Name is Al

In Advanced Users they link to computefreely.org for

approachable and friendly for people curious about free and open source operating systems and Linux distributions

which is definitely not the content there. Looks like the original website went defunct in 2022 between January and May. Their website repo is archived.

/edit: I saw the website is open source and created a change request.

Anyway, I’d be careful about how up-to-date this website is, and what it links to.

I assume you don’t mean keyboard text predictions, which would be a different thing, but the platforms.

It’s a new convenience feature. Something they as a platform can shine with, retain users, and set themselves apart from other platforms.

Having training data is not the primary potential gain. It’s user investment, retention, and interaction. Users choosing the generated text is valid training data. Whether they chose similar words, or what was suggested, is still input on user choice.

It does lead to a convergence to a centralized standard speak. With a self-strengthening feedback loop.

• https://github.com/pylorak/TinyWall
• https://github.com/Safing/portmaster
• https://github.com/henrypp/simplewall

I thought it’s about Retrospective meetings (dev process) , but it’s about accumulated log data.

Experience a Richer Life Today

What a slogan for an app that hides away surroundings :D