I think flatpaks are good. The performance penalty for containerized software can be felt much more when you're not using a good CPU. So containers do not "solve" my use case.
I don't think Lemmy or Mastodon would be a good place to start necessarily. Don't be discouraged, I just mean that I think this should be something separate, like a library,
True. I meant suggesting this idea for generally any website that uses tagging. Will update post to show this better.
As a code library it could be maintained elsewhere and let these folks keep working on their projects.
We would need a group like the Wiki Foundation to set this up. Though I wouldn't know how to pitch this.
That is more of an argument involving the implementation of tags in general within the federation. But to answer your question:
Let's say a group of people were to make a post on Mastodon with the tag #girls_night. How will all instances agree on the tag being correct?
The simple answer is they won't. If a tag is contentious, it will be like any other drama between instances.
It's the same for implementing tag hierarchy. Let's say there is a default setup. Then if a tag or a tree of tags is contentious, each instance can include or exclude as they see fit.
Two new tables for "tags" would be required. One for instance wide tags and one for community tags.
a curated list of tags users can attach to their posts. The list of tags can be maintained by both admins and moderators allowing for each community to tailor tags to their specific needs.
It's not what I was suggesting, but this should definitely be implemented for Lemmy.
I'm talking about how some tags should directly relate to one another, and how this should not always be the case in vice-versa. The system I'm suggesting is less useful when you limit the scope of tags (as the RFC does), but you can't really do that for user-centric websites like Mastodon.
I think I'll make an edit to clarify this in post.
Mount options also only take effect on the first mount of the device. Since it looks like you only have 1 btrfs device - only / needs the options, really.
The fee could be really small but scale depending on factors like business size. Or there could be no fee outright for businesses smaller than a certain size.
they only use Linux because it's free. Companies create hardware on Linux because it's free
Companies use open source software because it's the cheapest option. It's all about margins.
Nearly all of FOSS is funded by corporations whether you like it or not
Yes, and FOSS can get a lot more funding if they charged companies even a little bit.
So as long as it's cheaper to pay a fee to continue to use an open-source software than it is to hire a group of developers to produce and maintain the same thing, the idea is viable.
In my opinion, the issue is that a cell phone is such a free-software-hostile environment that arguably GPL software shouldn't "be allowed to" come into contact with it in any capacity if the spirit of the GPL were being upheld.
How are phones free-software-hostile? I know IOS is, but Android not really. There's a list of open source Android distributions. Although not very good, they are viable.
Actually, maybe making it a realistic possibility to drop in a recompiled replacement should be a part of the GPL. I remember people were talking about this decades ago
It does feel out of place how that isn't in the GPL.
If current licenses have the problem that big companies just ignore the terms set out in the license, I wouldn't imagine making a new sort of license with different terms like "big companies have to pay to get the benefit of using Pots-Open Source software" is really going to work.
It's more that they avoid the spirit of the licensing, not the terms (except Red Hat of course).
I suppose you can split this into two separate arguments:
I think flatpaks are good. The performance penalty for containerized software can be felt much more when you're not using a good CPU. So containers do not "solve" my use case.