Danny M

wouldn’t it have been easier to just read the source code? (not that GNU’s code is easy to read, but still)

It is

EDIT: I’m wrong, I don’t know what I was thinking, I misremembered hearing something apparently. Thank you for the corrections

Thank you! More people should do this. It may seem like $5 is nothing, but it’s actually great help. Even $1 helps out FOSS projects, as if even just 1% of the users of such projects donated $1 each month that’d be able to make a good income,

How about using LDAP? It’s a bit complicated to learn but it’s easy to integrate it in a bunch of applications and it allows you to manage user accounts and permissions in one central place.

Maybe try LLDAP which is a modern implementation (haven’t used it myself) which is designed to be simplified and I assume more welcoming to newcomers.

In general I agree with you. I find that most FOSS software is more polished than proprietary software, and it is generally more powerful.

However, I think that one problem that people somehow overlook in my opinion is that the financial side of the issue is also extremely important. I want more people to work on quality FOSS software, and I want it to become socially acceptable to work on FOSS as your main job. For that one thing is needed in my opinion: we as users of FOSS software need to give developers the financial incentives to work on what they love the whole time. In fact I want it to reach the point where immoral, non FOSS companies struggle to find developers because they’re all working on FOSS.

If you’re not aware, the hack was performed by Arion Kurtaj, an 18 year old, who has been put in prison a psych ward in a uk prison. He hacked rockstar at a hotel, where he was left with no computers or phones, only to find that the TV had a chromecast, which he used to buy a phone and a keyboard (presumably by selling his monero).

• He hacked into all major uk telcom providers: EE, BT and Orange.
• He hacked into nvidia

This kid deserves a 7-8 digits salary as a pentester, not prison; plenty of pentesting companies would hire him in a heartbeat.

Don’t get me wrong, he deserves a long and drawn out lesson on morals, but also a stellar salary where he can do what he’s doing for the right side.

EDIT: I have made a mistake in my original comment, which has been pointed out. My bad, he’s technically in a psych ward in a uk prison, because he’s aggressive and unstable. I still stand by what I said (and what I clarified in the comments below), but I wanted to correct the record

I’d like to correct you by saying that GPL is DEFINITELY enforceable in countries other than america. I can’t say about every country (tho that will be the case with every license), but for instance it’s definitely enforceable in europe. For example in Germany and France there have been a few lawsuits that the FSF helped carry out against immoral companies.

GPL Enforcement Cases - FSFE

If you’re in Germany the Institute for Legal Questions on Free and Open Source Software is a law firm that literally works only on enforcing the GPL, FOSS licenses and other technological human rights that are being ignored by big tech.

If you want to be even more sure about European Enforcement you may want to checkout the EUPL v1.2 which is GPLv3 compatible.

In other countries, such as Japan, the GPL is also enforceable, so long as you treat it the same way as copyright, so you’re willing to sue companies that you know are stealing from you (the FSF can help you if you can’t afford it).

Russia and China don’t care, but… it’s Russia and China, that’s not really news, is it? :)

EDIT: I will write a full article about the legal enforce-ability of FOSS licenses such as the GPL before the end of the year

MIT is a terrible license that only got popular because of the popularity of the anti-open source movement in the last decade.

one could write books about what’s wrong with the MIT license.

It could even theoretically be argued that MIT has in some ways allowed big tech companies to proliferate, by effectively allowing them to take open-source code, modify it, and then close it off in their proprietary software. What does this mean? It means that the work of countless dedicated open-source developers can be co-opted by companies that have done almost none of the work, reaping several billions of dollars, while the developers who actually did the work make no money. It’s like opening your doors wide only to have someone come in, take your stuff, and sell it back to you.

In contrast, in licenses like the GPL, there’s a requirement that if you use GPL-licensed code and modify it, your new code also has to be open-source under the GPL.

the syntax is more powerful than markdown, the whole idea of with blocks and the ability to have more complex layouts is great

I love it; it’s been my replacement for LaTeX ever since I’ve hears about it on hacker news

I mean fair enough, some files are in /run/current-system/sw/

well nix still uses the same structure, the only difference is that files are symlinked to files in subfolders of the /nix/store folder.

For example you may find that /etc/hosts is just a symlink to /nix/store/69420aaabbbcccdddfffggghhhiii420-hosts

Agreed, but it kinda already is… Ever gone to a library?

it was a pun, this lemmy instance is called beehaw, bee nice

I can give my two cents on it, as one of those people you’re talking about.

I’m very in touch with the FOSS community. I have used more FOSS software than you can think of (and yes, that is with your definition of FOSS). What I am NOT however is a stallmanist or a purist who dogmatically sticks to one narrow definition of what FOSS should be. While I wholly understand the importance of not diluting the meaning of FOSS, I think it’s critical to step back and see the broader picture here. The dogma around FOSS can sometimes be counterproductive, stifling the very innovation and freedom it aims to foster.

Firstly, if I had to choose, I’d certainly prefer to have a software landscape filled with “source-available” applications over one dominated by entirely proprietary systems. Source-available projects, even if not fully meeting the stringent FOSS criteria, still provide transparency and offer opportunities for auditing and modification, which is what we all want! It’s a step towards wresting control from Big Tech and their walled gardens.

Secondly, I aim to push for a new industry standard where, at the very least, source-available software becomes the norm. However, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Thirdly, we have to be realistic about sustaining FOSS projects. The developers behind these initiatives should absolutely be compensated for their contributions. It’s essential to acknowledge that people have livelihoods to maintain. And if a FOSS project (or a source-available one) truly provides value, its creators deserve not just recognition but overwhelming financial success. This is the only way to incentivize more high-quality projects and thereby fundamentally change the software industry for the better.

Lastly, concerning the GPL, while the GPL has played a monumental role in the growth and popularity of FOSS, it’s not without its flaws. For one, it can sometimes discourage commercial adoption, which, whether you like it or not, is a powerful driver for widespread change.

While I’m way more invested in FOSS than most people, I don’t consider myself a purist; I don’t consider myself a Stallmanist and as much as I respect his contributions to software I would rather the world not have his dogmatic and “religious” beliefs in Software.

I believe in a pragmatic approach that not only seeks to amplify the tenets of FOSS but also recognizes the realities of the world we inhabit. Being inflexible in our definitions and approach can only improve our situation.

Let’s not make this sound worse than it is. We don’t need to devolve into Stallman everytime we see software that’s not 100% in agreement with the GPL or other extreme licenses. Let’s celebrate some great software, nitpicking like this is not productive. Their license is perfect for their product; at the very least they’re HONEST unlike big tech companies. I’d rather have “source available” code than proprietary bullshit that can only be understood by spending months looking at it with ghidra

the state of developer pays in italy is infuriating. 15/h for a developer is unbearably low, even in europe.