Captain Beyond @ beyond @linkage.ds8.zone

Caretaker of Sunhillow/DS8.ZONE. Free (Libre) Software enthusiast and promo

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

294

Joined

4 yr. ago

It is in fact non-free. (The article is about Grayjay, a product from the same company that uses the same license)

Not an endorsement of ExpressVPN, I've learned to avoid companies that sponsor on youtube. However, I believe you don't need the proprietary app to use the service, you could use a free software OpenVPN client such as this one.

They do offer support for OpenVPN although, unsurprisingly, they heavily push their proprietary client as the preferred way to use the service. This alone would be enough to discourage me from using it or recommending it.

Interesting - they don't seem to publicize this at all on their site, nor do they mention the LGPL anywhere (that I could find). Their site only seems to offer it under an EULA.

I wonder if these LGPL sources are the full source of the application, then.

edit: prior revision of the readme clarifies that, although the Plasticity source code is LGPL, it uses a proprietary library which makes the resulting product proprietary. Presumably the expensive licenses are for this proprietary library and not for Plasticity itself. This proprietary library seems to be Parasolid, the geometry kernel. I wonder if there is a fully free alternative.

If you mean this Plasticity, it doesn't appear to be actual Free (libre) Software, just regular old EULA proprietary software.

Just started trying out Scoop recently and I'm finding it fits my taste more than chocolatey so far. I appreciate the fact that it keeps apps isolated in a standard user directory, doesn't require admin, and uses plain git repos with json manifests instead of whatever chocolatey uses. In some ways it's similar to some things guix does, although obviously they are extremely different in concept.

Not a copypasta, although given the average community member's understanding of this issue comes from memes and copypastas, maybe it should become one.

That's at the core of the myth (and thus the myths surrounding the myth) - that the discussion is about "what to call Linux" when in fact it's always been about separating Linux from the userland that is often paired with it. Linux is Linux, no matter what compiler you use to build it - but the stuff that runs on top of Linux is not Linux.

I guess I'm being called out here, so wall of text incoming.

Linux and GNU are completely separate projects that have no relationship organizationally or technologically. As basic as this is, this is important to understand as the backdrop for "the GNU/Linux issue."

Linux was started in 1991 as a project to build an operating system, one that is "not as big or professional as GNU." In practical terms, Linux is just a kernel. It has no terminal, no command line tools, no desktop, no package manager, no web browser. Yet, people speak of it as if it's a fully featured operating system that contains all of those things, an alternative to Windows or macOS.

GNU was started in 1983 as a project to build an operating system, but as GNU's own kernel (the Hurd) is in development hell, the userland components (libraries and tools) are generally used with Linux to form a complete operating system, which is referred to as GNU/Linux. The "slash" is meant to signify that it's a combination of these two projects. Note that, as the GNU project has adopted the Linux-libre variant of Linux, the Hurd is no longer really a priority project.

Of course, you can have Linux without GNU (Android and Alpine are the best examples of this) and you can also run GNU on non-Linux platforms (Debian has a port that runs on the FreeBSD kernel, and the tools themselves run on any Unixy operating system and even Windows). So I don't really think you can conclude any of these are the "most important part" of the operating system, and it more or less comes down to whatever brand name you feel the most comfortable with.

And, of course, most GNU/Linux operating systems contain much more than GNU and Linux these days. Therefore, I prefer to understand Linux as a family of operating systems (as Wikipedia defines it) and GNU/Linux as a subfamily. The ironic thing is that, from a UX perspective, Linux, the kernel, is probably the least prominent component of the operating system, as it is furthest away from the user interface - but it is most prominent brand name and so gets applied to the whole "ecosystem."

A lot of Linux fans think an operating system has to have more than Linux to be a "real Linux" operating system, or that it has to be community run or "anti-corporate" or meet some ideological criteria. But, Linus himself has no such ideology, and Linux is a very corporate project. Android is the most widely used Linux operating system. It is as much "real Linux" as Debian is.

The myth of the fictional operating system called Linux naturally leads to other myths, such as the myth of fragmentation. In that sense I feel it's harmful, but the damage has been done and even the conversation around the myth has its own myths (such as the idea that Stallman wants to "rename Linux" or is jealous of Linux's popularity, that "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" because "it contains GNU" or because it was built with GNU tools or licensed under the GPL). It's hard to argue for "calling it GNU/Linux" when people don't even understand what "it" is, or even what the admittedly convoluted name is supposed to signify. So, for that reason, I don't think the "battle" is worth fighting anymore.

For the record, though, I refer to my preferred operating system by its own name, GNU Guix System, and make an effort not to center any particular project or brand name when talking about the free software community and ecosystem in general. I don't characterize myself as a fan or user of Linux, just a free software enthusiast - the fact that all of my preferred operating systems contain Linux is a consequence of the fact that Linux is the most widely used free software kernel, not because of any brand loyalty on my part. Non-Linux operating systems such as the BSD's should be considered as part of the free operating system family.

Not really a "foss bro" issue, more an issue of privacy guys not understanding software-freedom as its own concern separate from privacy concerns. Same with all the "third party clients" that are just wrappers/mods for the first party client.

There are actual third party discord clients, I use one myself. And, while discord is certainly a terrible service that we should try to lessen our dependency on, it's unfortunate that we have friends and communities on that service and we can certainly use discord with a free client while we make the transition. For me, I use an IRC bridge wherever possible, but bridges generally need to be set up by the "server" "owner" so it's not always an option.

Reading comprehension might be a general problem on reddit and reddit-offshoots (which lemmy certainly is) as I see fans of proprietary software going into free software communities to recommend their favorite proprietary apps. It's certainly not limited to "foss bros."

That video came out in January 2018, so at the time it was "very recent." I don't think anything would have changed significantly since then.

It doesn't really. In theory more eyes on the code means more chance for a security bug to be found, either by white hat researchers or black hat exploiters. In practice this doesn't really pan out; not only are most free software projects small hobbyist endeavors, but even large free software projects with many eyes on them, such as OpenSSL and curl, have had critical security vulnerabilities over the years. When it comes to security issues, having the right eyes on the code matters more than having many eyes.

The original promise of free software, the four freedoms, is all it guarantees. In my opinion this is enough to prefer free software over proprietary.

Most of the "third party clients" being suggested here are wrappers for the official client. I use purple-discord. If you don't care about voice/video this works well enough.

If this is "completely open source" and "doesn't rely on the original Discord client in any way" (from their front page) how can mods for the official client be compatible?

Oh wait, their faq clarifies things: it's an electron wrapper for the official web client, not a completely open source client that doesn't rely on the official one as they claim.

It's worth noting, of course, that those illicit forks of NewPipe also violate their license. If dishonest proprietary software developers don't care about NewPipe's license why would they care about FUTO's? If they really want to stop forks they can simply make their product source-unavailable, but then they don't get to claim to be "open source" or "open source adjacent."

The problem is not so much that the are forks (remember, in the free software world, forks are explicitly allowed) but that these forks use the branding of the original project and thus damage the original project's reputation. There is a tool for dealing with counterfeits - trademark - and it is a tool used by reputable free software organizations such as Mozilla and Debian. Now imagine if those free software projects adopted FUTO's hostility to forks - it would be a net loss to the free software community. Don't let organizations like FUTO sell you the idea that you don't need the freedom to fork.

Of course, even proprietary products can be counterfeited, and trademark helps stop those too.

FOSS/privacy community

These are not the same community. The actual free software community has been a thing for 40 years, and the privacy/security people spend as much time attacking free software as they do big tech. I've come to believe no security or privacy guy is trustworthy in the free software space. Reject Rossman, return to Stallman.

edit: security guys will say "free software isn't always more secure!" and privacy guys will say "freedom, what is this freedom? it has no internet access, that's the only thing that matters!" and meanwhile stuff like WEI is being implemented, that we've been warning about for the last 40 years. The security and privacy guys will say you don't need freedom, just the "best tool for the job" - Chrome was the best browser when it came out, now it's being used to subjugate the free web. WEI is the end result of treating freedom as a second thought behind security.

Any "why are there too many X's on Linux" (where X is package manager, desktop environment, init system etc) appear to stem from the silly assumption that there happens to be an already built operating system called Linux and all these people are forking it and putting in their own stuff for the sake of their own egos and nothing else.

When really, the answer fundamentally boils down to either one of two things: either it doesn't exist yet, or the existing solution fails to meet a need. Linux, itself, is merely a kernel; it didn't come with a package manager or desktop environment. Those things all had to be made by separate parties and there isn't always agreement on how best to do them.

As a Guix user, I believe the Guix package manager has advantages over "traditional" GNU/Linux package managers, as well as other so-called "universal package managers" such as Flatpak.

Is it actually free (as in freedom), or merely gratis? It looks proprietary to me.

xfce. For me, it strikes that perfect balance between lightweight and featureful, looks good but not too fancy, is customizable and usable. I set it up the way I like it and it never changes on me.

In the context of the software freedom movement, the fundamental pillars are the four freedoms - to use, share, modify, and share modified copies. It's never been about price and we even say that selling free software is okay.

It's a common misconception about the free software movement to say we're against "developers making money" when we're really just about computer users having the four freedoms. We just argue that those four freedoms come before the developer's business model.

Well, yes, the end products of GAFAM aren't designed to respect users' freedom, but rather to control them. That doesn't mean we can't extract the good parts of what they do and create user-respecting alternatives. Standard Android sucks but we have LineageOS and GrapheneOS, for example.

A tool, like any human creation, is imbued with the agenda of its creators. The freedom to share and modify the tool is what allows the community to override the initial creator's agenda. If free software comes with tracking malware the community will create a version without it. The community thus acts as a check against the power of the core developers.

This is why I'm against blindly rejecting anything that GAFAM has contributed to, as long as there is a freedom-respecting community version available.