We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!
-
Anyone remember this?
-
@ben_lubar said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Anyone remember this?
Yes. And I still call it Linux.
Stallman can sue me
-
@GÄ ska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I'm not trying to encourage manufacturers to publish specifications. They win nothing with it - they'll never do it out of their own volition. I'm trying to encourage consumers to demand from manufacturers to publish specifications. This doesn't require benefit to manufacturers to work. It's only required to not make manufacturers break down.
Thatâs not what I meant. If publishing specifications can make customers aware of bugs and put them off buying a particular device, then hardware manufacturers will see this as a reason to resist publishing specifications, because they only stand to lose on this point, not to gain.
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Did you know that MacOS is free as in beer even though it is not open-source? I wonder how that works for Apple.
I know that $27.99 CAN in USD is even less, but that's still not free
I think what @levicki meant is that if you buy a Mac, you donât pay for macOS upgrades for as long as Apple supports your machine. (INB4 âthatâll be about a year if youâre luckyâ â Iâm typing this on a six-year-old iMac running the current version of macOS.)
-
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Iâm typing this on a six-year-old iMac
ď š You're using a vintage machine
you donât pay for macOS upgrades for as long as Apple supports your machine
And you can't run MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
Why do they sell it in the store then?
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Iâm typing this on a six-year-old iMac
ď š You're using a vintage machine
It will be replaced within the next couple of days by a new one.
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Did you know that MacOS is free as in beer even though it is not open-source? I wonder how that works for Apple.
I know that $27.99 CAN in USD is even less, but that's still not free
Snow Leopard is like 10 years old; a few versions later (I forget when exactly) they made every update free-as-in-you-have-to-own-a-Mac.
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Why do they sell it in the store then?
VMs.
-
@dcon said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
VMs.
From what I've read, you can install the same license on 2 VMs (plus your real machine) as long as those run on your MacOS machine.
-
@dkf said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@bb36e By communicating with someone who is technically able to fix the bug, pointing out that the bug exists (âthis seems weird and I don't think it is rightâ) and helping them understand how to reproduce and test it?
Yeah. That doesn't always work, but I can tell you from experience that writing code doesn't always fix a bug either and sometimes it just makes things worse overall.
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
From what I've read, you can install the same license on 2 VMs (plus your real machine) as long as those run on your MacOS machine.
Licence? There may technically be one, but macOS doesnât ask for it and doesnât phone home to stop running if you try to install the same copy on more than one (or however many) computers. The main legal requirement is that you must run it on Apple-branded hardware, and VMs apparently enforce this by checking to see if they are running under macOS or not if you want to install macOS in one.
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@dcon said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
VMs.
From what I've read, you can install the same license on 2 VMs (plus your real machine) as long as those run on your MacOS machine.
Haven't tried. Last I knew, you weren't even allowed to create a VM unless it was on an Apple server. I just have a plain ole low end MacBook.
-
@dcon said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
on an Apple server
They still make those?
-
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@GÄ ska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I'm not trying to encourage manufacturers to publish specifications. They win nothing with it - they'll never do it out of their own volition. I'm trying to encourage consumers to demand from manufacturers to publish specifications. This doesn't require benefit to manufacturers to work. It's only required to not make manufacturers break down.
Thatâs not what I meant. If publishing specifications can make customers aware of bugs and put them off buying a particular device, then hardware manufacturers will see this as a reason to resist publishing specifications, because they only stand to lose on this point, not to gain.
Customers being aware of bugs is the least of their problems in this scenario. They have more than enough reasons to oppose it even without that. Just like with everything else that benefits customers.
-
@GÄ ska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
They have more than enough reasons to oppose it even without that. Just like with everything else that benefits customers.
Companies aren't hostile to things that benefit consumers, only to things that reduce profit. It's just unfortunate that both have pretty good correlation.
-
@Zerosquare sure, there is this technical detail that, as you have yourself pointed out, doesn't matter in great majority of cases.
-
@_P_ said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@GÄ ska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
Since 99% of the world is not interested in the previous "freedoms" this one is equally irrelevant.
Have you ever heard of game mods?
Are you sure you really want to open this can of worms? Modding community is an even bigger shithole than FOSS community of all things, and the fact that they share lots of nastiness should tell you something.
Great, so the modders are dicks. That totally explains why the huge popularity of game modding is irrelevant as a response to you saying nobody is interested in modification.
-
@anonymous234 Stallman wants all software (or at least software for end users) to be funded by the government, like it was when he was at academia, through a tax on "non-free" software. Seriously.
He also supports dual-licensing though. There are some libraries that are AGPL and are funded by selling licenses for commercial use.
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@ben_lubar said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Anyone remember this?
Yes. And I still call it Linux.
Stallman can sue meStallman definitely looks a lot healthier than before.
Probably stopped eating toe fungus and started a Mastodon instance for witches or something.
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
And you can't run MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
Well. You're not supposed to, per the license agreement.
But hackintosh is a thing.
-
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I would love to watch what happens at a actual "install fest."
They install distros
up people buttson people's PCs. An alternative name is "install orgy".There are even servicemen there that you can walk up to with a distro that isn't quite right and they will service it for you, perform troubleshooting steps, check that it's still working properly and then when you are satisfied with their service, you can just safely and smugly leave, wielding your distro in hand.
-
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
but I am too old to believe in fairytales.
I'm not! One of these days I'm going to get a fairy nice and cum-drunk, and then magic!
-
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
That doesn't always work
Yes, but it's for sure better than nothing and doesn't require deep understanding or user sophistication.
-
@ben_lubar said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@ben_lubar said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Anyone remember this?
Yes. And I still call it Linux.
Stallman can sue meStallman definitely looks a lot healthier than before.
Probably stopped eating toe fungus and started a Mastodon instance for witches or something.
Did shi also get a gender change?
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gurth said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Which proves that this isnât a Linux support/help forum
Toby Fair, I never asked anything in a Linux forum, so I can't comment
I have asked many things in Linux forums, and most of the time I get help.
-
@Atazhaia said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@PleegWat We can also compare this with Windows who will helpfully turn off your lights as soon as it gets dark outside, because the dark hours are for sleeping only.
Nah. There are plenty of other things you can do during the dark hours when the lights are off.
Like, you know, the Horizontal Fandango. Requires no light.
-
Why Aren't People Abandoning Windows For Linux? - Slashdot
This weekend SlashGear published "Reasons to Abandon Windows For Linux," making their case to "Windows users who are curious about the state of Linux for mainstream computing." It tries to enumerate specific reasons why Linux might be the better choice, arguing among other things that: Updates on...
The beatings will continue until the Linux is adopted!
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Horizontal Fandango
Buying movie tickets?
-
@hungrier said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Horizontal Fandango
Buying movie tickets?
They stream now too.
-
@izzion said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
This weekend SlashGear published "Reasons to Abandon Windows For Linux," making their case to "Windows users who are curious about the state of Linux for mainstream computing." It tries to enumerate specific reasons why Linux might be the better choice, arguing among other things that: Updates on...
The beatings will continue until the Linux is adopted!
My personal reason for running windows is that I play games. Everything else computers i prefer to do in Linux.
And I'm annoyed at every place where they force a gimped windows as a development platform for stuff that will never run on windows in production.
-
@_P_ said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
If they're a developer, then GPL doesn't free them because now they have to make their code GPL too;
While I'm not a fan of GPL, I can't agree with your complaint that it is coercive. The only "coercion" they use is say "I made this thing. If you want to build on top of it, you have to follow the same rules I use". You didn't have a right to their effort before you were made aware of the thing they made, and they don't prevent you from redoing the same work they did on your own and not follow their rules. You are free to ignore them and your range of action is not diminished in any way, so how are they forcing anything on you?
Your problem seems to be that, despite claiming FOSS is low quality, you really want to use their libraries but don't want to "pay" the price they demand (giving up some of your freedoms as a developer).
-
@Kian said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
While I'm not a fan of GPL, I can't agree with your complaint that it is coercive.
Some of the software I write is GPL because that's what it was when I got here and I'm not about to go round changing that, and they are paying me to work on it so I don't mind too much. I don't pick it for my own stuff (I prefer BSD). I try to make that which I write as good as I can; professional pride, etc.
I happen to know of much commercial software that builds on top of OSS libraries. I've been told by many people that the quality of some OSS libraries is far in excess of the quality of the commercial software that uses it. But that's not really exciting for reporting here. It's just plain old Sturgeon's Law.
You can tell when a major FOSS project is mostly shit. Their issue tracker auto-closes bugs on the grounds that they can't be bothered to ever work out if they've really fixed anything. (I guess the same might be true for closed source projects.)
-
@Kian said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
You didn't have a right to their effort before you were made aware of the thing they made, and they don't prevent you from redoing the same work they did on your own and not follow their rules. You are free to ignore them and your range of action is not diminished in any way, so how are they forcing anything on you?
Your problem seems to be that, despite claiming FOSS is low quality, you really want to use their libraries but don't want to "pay" the price they demand (giving up some of your freedoms as a developer).
Except that it was the FOSS movement who started this "we're sick of proprietary, closed source code, let make everything open" argument. And then they proceed to advocate for GPL which also limits the users with what they can do with the product? In which part does "shoving 'freedom' down everyone's throat" constitute actual freedom? It's still shoving ideologies down people's throats. Others are still restricted in how they can use these product. It's not just ideological fight, it's straight out deception and false advertising.
By your same (shitty) argument, if you don't like proprietary product, you can just roll your own; then why do we need FOSS movement in the first place? Just roll our own crappy implementation (like a million IM bots out there) and your problem is solved! And we just obsoleted the entire FOSS ecosystem!
-
@hungrier said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Horizontal Fandango
Buying movie tickets?
-
@_P_ said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
In which part does "shoving 'freedom' down everyone's throat" constitute actual freedom?
In the part were you are free to ignore them? As you said, they were sick of "proprietary, closed source code", so they redid all the closed source code they needed for a complete working system and released it on the condition that if you choose to integrate their code into your product, you don't get to keep what you built on top of it closed either. How are they "shoving 'freedom' down everyone's throat"? If you don't agree with them, just don't use their code. Some people agree with them, or value GPL products themselves despite not building new things with that code. For example, I benefit from open source compilers despite not including the compiler source into my code. And not paying for a license for a server OS also makes it easier to build things, even if I don't GPL my own products.
@_P_ said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
By your same (shitty) argument, if you don't like proprietary product, you can just roll your own
Well, yes. That's what freedom means. You collaborate with others, or you go your own way. It's when you are prevented from going your own way that you don't have freedom.
@_P_ said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
then why do we need FOSS movement in the first place?
Who's we? The people in the FOSS movement need the FOSS movement because it advances their interests. If the FOSS movement isn't doing anything for you, then why should anyone care? Or do you think freedom means for everyone to be a slave to you and only say and do the things you personally find useful? 'Cause that's what it looks like. "People express opinions I don't share! I'm being oppressed!"
-
Discussions about why people haven't switched from Windows to Linux, whether the GPL virality is a good thing or not, and (in another topic) a "CSS vs tables" debate?
I feel like I used a time machine and went back 15 years.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@hungrier said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Horizontal Fandango
Buying movie tickets?
No that would be FlightHub
-
@El_Heffe said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
The GPL has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. If the GPL and "free software" were really about freedom then the GPL would contain exactly one sentence:
"You are free to do whatever you want with this software."
I agree. That sentence would effectively abolish property enforcement for this peice of software. For true freedom, it would be necessary to do this for everything, not just software. As long as this isn't so however, there will still be people who would like to take someone's work, add a minor part and forbid others to do whatever they want with it, and those people are reined in by the GPL.
The truth is, the GPL is about forcing a particular set of beliefs on people. Stallman, and his ilk, only care about freedom in the Orwellian Doublespeak sense: In order to be free you must do exactly as I say, and only as I say.
That's what everybody's licenses do - arguably except the Public Domain "license" you quote above. You could try to find a usable operating system that's free in your sense.
-
@LaoC said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
peice
Remember: "I before E, except when not".
-
@Zecc said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@LaoC said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
peice
Remember: "I before E, except when not".
What a wierd rule
Yeah, sloppy correction. I noticed I'd missed the e but not that my correction was in the wrong place.
-
@izzion said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
The beatings will continue until the Linux is adopted!
I don't want everyone to adopt Linux.
You can all keep using that POS that reboot without your consent because it updated Candy Crush Saga
-
@Zerosquare said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Discussions about why people haven't switched from Windows to Linux, whether the GPL virality is a good thing or not, and (in another topic) a "CSS vs tables" debate?
I feel like I
used a time machinefound a hammer andwent back 15 yearsbonked myself in the head.
-
@LaoC said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Zecc said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@LaoC said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
peice
Remember: "I before E, except when not".
What a wierd rule
Yeah, sloppy correction. I noticed I'd missed the e but not that my correction was in the wrong place.
-
@TimeBandit In fact Windows Store apps do not require reboots to update.
-
@pie_flavor Neither do most Windows apps.
-
@TimeBandit Funny you should mention that, yesterday I discovered they'd been installed despite me disabling "suggestions in Start Menu" etc.
After a bit of google search, I got word of the registry key Ordinateur\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\ContentDeliveryManager, value SilentInstalledAppsEnabled, and promptly set it to zero for every single user in my "users" menu. Time will tell whether that's enough.
-
@Medinoc said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I discovered they'd been installed despite me disabling "suggestions in Start Menu"
I love how there is a setting to disable it, but Windows ignore it anyway
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Medinoc said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I discovered they'd been installed despite me disabling "suggestions in Start Menu"
I love how there is a setting to disable it, but Windows ignore it anyway
'Suggestions in start menu' has nothing to do with installing apps. It has everything to do with advertising.
-
@dcon said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
It has everything to do with advertising.
Win10 has everything to do with advertising, yes
