Markaos @ Markaos @lemmy.one

Posts

6

Comments

217

Joined

2 yr. ago

No worries, nothing wrong with not knowing everything about every random subject. I would like to apologize for being overly harsh, I assumed that people in c/opensource would have general knowledge of this definition, but that assumption was clearly bad. So again, sorry.

I assume the term is misused often.

Yes, companies sometimes do that. Open source is marketable as a guarantee that you won't fully lose access to a piece of software, and there aren't any real consequences of misusing it. But there's also a scheme called dual licensing where the software is available under two licenses - one license is open source but annoying for commercial use, and the other is a "normal" proprietary license under which businesses can buy the code. This is fine (as long as the provider has copyright to all the code being dual licensed) and is pretty common and makes the software open source.

But "open source" doesn't even mean that you can reproduce it or use it for free.

You're thinking of source-available licenses. Open source has a clear and widely accepted definition that requires a certain level of freedom. You're free to ignore this definition, but you can't expect the rest of the world to do the same.

To be clear, open source allows for only providing access to paying customers, but those paying customers are then free to use and distribute their copies without any further payment. Then it wouldn't be open source anymore.

If a thief knows your PIN (by watching an earlier unlock), Android is now requiring “biometrics for accessing and changing critical Google account and device settings, like changing your PIN, disabling theft protection or accessing Passkeys, from an untrusted location.”

Sounds great for Pixel 6 series with their reportedly highly reliable fingerprint sensors /s

Honestly, I'm not sure what to think about this - extra protection against unauthorized access is good, but requiring biometric verification with no apparent alternative irks me the wrong way.

Maybe that's just because of my experiences with Nokia 5.3 and its awful rear fingerprint sensor with like 10% success rate. But then again, there will eventually be phones with crappy sensors running Android 15.

I mean, it's called "LaTeX by example", so there's a pretty good chance it's written in LaTeX, which you do indeed compile to get the PDF or whatever output you want.

Also, just having access to the source doesn't make it open source - that requires more freedoms. For example, here's GitLab Enterprise Edition source code, fully functional and ready to be used. And also officially described as the proprietary edition of GitLab by the GitLab company itself. Why? Because its license pretty much boils down to "you can use this only for testing and development, unless you have paid for it".

See? Hidden in an image, clearly that's steganography! /s

The downside is that you're then zooming in on the compression artifacts and all the "enhancements" we've all learned to "love" over the past decade (thanks, Google!), while the in-app zoom probably works with raw image data before zooming in.

Oh sorry, I understood your comment as saying that you couldn't get weather info with GadgetBridge because of its somewhat unique architecture. If you're using a different companion app then apps for GadgetBridge probably won't work.

Also I'm not familiar with Pebble, I'm just assuming it works similarly to other GadgetBridge-supported watches / bands like the Mi Band I use.

GadgetBridge is not really against supporting online-only functions, it just can't be part of the main app. Weather Providers is what you're looking for.

Well, feel free to click on this link then: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en

(it's just a link to Google homepage - the point is that you really shouldn't trust the link text lol)

What's sketchy about https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en ?

Yeah, that same website says there are 4.8k "new" users here, so it doesn't add up.

Not a fair comparison IMHO - Ethernet is designed to be a connection between two or more otherwise independent peers (on L2), while USB's goal was to allow connecting simple peripheral devices to computers. There was never meant to be a situation where it's unclear which side is the Host.

Also note that the bridging "cable" is literally just two USB devices, one for each computer (although they are both on the same chip, so there's that), with some internal link to pass the data.

Yeah, it's not practical right now, but in 10 years? Who knows, we might finally have some built-in AI accelerator capable of running big neural networks on consumer CPUs by then (we do have AI accelerators in a large chunk of current CPUs, but they're not up to the task yet). The system memory should also go up now that memory-hungry AI is inching closer to mainstream use.

Sure, Internet bandwidth will also increase, meaning this compression will be less important, but on the other hand, it's not like we've stopped improving video codecs after h.264 because it was good enough - there are better codecs now even though we have the resources to handle bigger h.264 videos.

The technology doesn't have to be useful right now - for example, neural networks capable of learning have been studied since the 1940s, even though there would be no way to run them for many decades, and it would take even longer to run them in a useful capacity. But now that we have the technology to do so, they enjoy rapid progress building on top of that original foundation.

You could put your .desktop files in a separate directory and just symlink them to ~/.local/share/applications. If you want to have all your aliases together, you could have a directory like Aliases or whatever and then have Aliases/desktop for .desktop launchers, Aliases/bin for scripts or binaries (and have it in PATH), Aliases/bashrc for your bash aliases (and just put source .../Aliases/bashrc in ~/.bashrc), etc.

Of course everyone has their own opinions on how to organize stuff, but this is IMHO pretty clean for what you probably want to do.

Edit: and to quickly (re)create the symlinks, you could use a bash one-liner like for f in .../Aliases/desktop/*; do ln -s "$f" "~/.local/share/applications/$(basename "$f")"; done - put it into your bashrc as a function and remember to run it whenever you create a new .desktop launcher, and you should be golden.

Alright, I didn't know ISPs use other types of NAT for the "few to many" mapping of public IPs to customers - all I've seen in my limited experience were plain old static public IPs, dynamic public IPs assigned on each connection, and what I assume to be a CGNAT (the router was assigned an IP in the 100.64.0.0/10 range from the ISP). So that's good to know, thanks.

I don't understand how everyone thinks it's reasonable to assume that A. your whole network has been compromised or B. that it would benefit the attacker in any way to use your connection to download movies. They use a crap modem, that's why it crashes often, and using IKWYD without knowing how DHT and IPv4 addressing works is just causing paranoia through ignorance.

This has literally nothing to do with my comment.

Do CGNATs nowadays support port forwarding? Because my understanding was that most CGNAT setups make incoming connections nearly impossible and the few exceptions work by reserving a few port numbers for each customer. But OP doesn't seem to have any trouble with port forwarding.

I don't think that's a similar situation - the Linux kernel lost some functionality there, but in this case Ext2 filesystems are still fully supported by the Ext4 driver, so there's no difference in "hardware" support.

The separate Ext2 driver was being kept for embedded devices with extreme memory or storage limitations where saving some kilobytes by not having all the new Ext3/4 features was useful, but when you can afford the extra memory, there's no reason not to just use the Ext4 driver for all Ext2/3/4 filesystems.

Mandatory XKCD

Source for alt-text

So, if I understand this correctly, open source means free beer, just not if you sell the end product.

Yes, once you give the beer to someone, you can't require any further payments no matter what they do with it. Free software philosophy says users are free to use the software however they wish and for whatever purpose they wish without any barriers (like having to pay for commercial use).

its all a scam for free work for corpos then. Very disappointing.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and it's becoming a not-so-rare sentiment lately (or at least I've started noticing it more), but I don't agree. Look at (A)GPL and how many companies are doing their best to avoid such code - like when Google made their own C library for Android and even stated that its main goal was to avoid copyleft licenses. I've also seen plenty of people say that GPL code is pretty much useless for their work due to their company's policies forbidding its use.

I also think that revenue-based loyalties screw over small companies the most - sure, you get the donations from the massive companies that can work with 1% of their revenue gone while also keeping it free for non-commercial users, but in my view you also help those same massive corporations by making the software less viable for their smaller competitors who don't have the economies of scale on their side, and for whom that 1% might legitimately break the bank.

And to be clear, I don't mean any of my arguments as some kind of "gotcha! Look, I'm right and you're wrong", I just thought I might share my reasoning for why I don't think your statement is fair.

Here's Stallman's/FSF's view on requiring loyalties (lol) royalties (read the whole section, it's explicitly stated at the end), and here's similar requirement in OSI's Open source definition.

You are free to use whatever license you wish, but don't call it FOSS/Open source if you don't agree with their definitions.