Platforms. I don't believe that the people who create, or invest in, large internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Uber, Booking, Upwork, etc, have a natural or moral right of ownership to said platform. They should certainly receive returns on their investment - but they shouldn't have full operational control. Instead, as the platofrm grows, operational control should slowly transition to its users. eventually, they should have the final say on, in the case of YouTube. what content in acceptable, what procedures should be used to remove unacceptable content, how to appeal, etc.
Employment. One of the big issues I see is that employees are under someone's direct control for 1/3 of each day, and have to do what their boss says. And while they technically consented to that relationship, I don't see that consent as freely given, because for most people there isn't a viable alternative. This could be done through more worker cooperative, or encouraging freelancing. Even for people who decide to remain in traditional employment, they should have more official control than they do now.
AI. It seems many people here hate AI, but AI does have the potential for large productivity gains. And while, in the past, productivity gains have note resulted in less work, but rather higher GDP, we could always force the issue. After all, people did it ~100 years ago, and the economy didn't collapse because of that.
I haven't had that issue. I've heard that disabling adblockers resolves it. But people have said that spoofing their user agent to chrome also magically resolves it...
Many imagine future AI as an autonomous agent. I don't think anyone will release that. Instead, I expect to see a generative AI like GPT-4, however one that produces super-smart responses.
This will create a situation where the amount of computing resources someone has access to determines how much intelligence they can use. And the difference will be much bigger and more comprehensive than the difference between a genius and a normal human.
The reasoning given by GrayJay was that they don’t want a bunch of malware / ad filled clones running around, and I think that’s reasonable justification?
It's not.
That just hasn't been a problem for open source projects. I've been using almost only open source since like 2007, and I've never seen or heard about an ad-filled clone of some of them. Even if they are a thing, they've never reached me as a user.
If someone did want to distribute malware clones, they won't be stopped by a license restriction.
I didn’t come across any restrictions imposed on an end user to modify the app for their own needs or redistribution
It's by default that you can't redistribute modified versions. You need explicit permission to do so. Furthermore, that license is revocable. So let's say you invest a lot of time into making modifications - at any point, they can revoke the license, and you suddenly find yourself forbidden from distributing your modified version, too/
If/when Grayjay is transitioned to FOSS, I imagine it’ll be difficult for the community to maintain it due to the complexity…
That's not really relevant. There's no requirement in open source on how the projects are to be maintained.
the last thing someone like that would want on a personal project is loads of strangers contributing, bad actors ripping it off trying to make a quick buck, or even worse redistributing it with malware.
It's up to him whether he accepts strangers contributing. That has nothing to do with whether it's open source. If he didn't want contributions, he could disallow any pull requests on an open source software - or conversely, if there are people willing to contribute to a non-open-source project, there's theoretically nothing stopping that. Redistributing it with malware is not really a problem open-source projects have, and malware writers wouldn't care for the license anyway.
The only thing is would be the somewhat relevant would be making a quick buck part, but that's only been a problem for people using MIT/BSD license.
Finally, I'll never understand why people would want to name software after dental string...
I think there's an issue with coupling on the fediverse. For instance, if I run a community, but I'm not happy with the current instance policies, I can't easily move it to a new insurance (while keeping the memberships). It's also tricky to migrate my account - and it will lose me posting and vote history, edit/delete rights, etc. Finally, if I want to participate in two servers that have defederated each other, I have to maintain two accounts, which is a terrible user experience.
There's desperate need to a library that's simpler to use than wlroots or smithay - but unless it supports more protocols (later shell, gamma control, session lock), I don't think this is a real a alternative yet.
Do you think the use of OCI containers/images is a mistake/bad choice from blendOS?
No. It's probably the best way to run packages from Arch, Debian. Ubuntu, Fedora, and others, all on the same system.
How is NixOS different?
NixOS simply doesn't tackle that problem, so it doesn't come with containers out of the box. If you want to run packages from other distros on NixOS, you'd probably need to manually configure the containers.
I feel like you're under the impression that the three distros, NixSO, blendos, and Vanilla OS, have similar goals. I don't know about Vanilla OS, but the main similarity between the other two is that they're both non-standard in some way.
But they're actually solving completely different problems: BlendOS wants to be a blend of different OSes, NixOS wants to have a reproducible, declarative configuration (declarative here means, you don't list a bunch of steps to reach your system state, but instead declare what that state is).
Well, for playing games I use the flatpak version of steam and it works OK.
For dev work, it's great overall. Especially its ability to create separate reproducible environments with whatever dependencies you need for every project. However, there are some tools (rare, but they exist) that don't work well with it, and if your dev work happens to need them, it can becomes a problem.
For day to day (i.e. web browsing), it works the same as anything, with one disadvantage: there is a disadvantage here: it downloads a lot more than other distros on update, and uses more disk space. The biggest difference between NixOS, and say Arch, is not how it behaves once it's up and running, but in how you configure it. Specifically, you have to invest a lot of time to learn how, and set up your system initially. But then reinstalls, and (some of) the maintenance, become easier.
To clarify, I was referring specifically to its ability to specify the full system configuration in its config file - not overall. But I haven't used blendos, and my impression is mostly from a quick look at their documentation. They have a snippet with sample configuration. There, they have a "Modules" section, but I couldn't find what modules are available, what options they have, how to configure them if we want to do something more complex than the available options.
Then containers are clearer: they have a list of installed apps, and then commands to bring them to the desired state (somewhat similar to a dockerfile). But even then, i imagine that if you have a more complex configuration, that's going to get clunkier.
I think NixOS is awesome, but it certainly doesn't offer "access to (basically) all Linux-capable software, no matter from what repo." - at least not natively. You can do that through containers, but you can do that with containers on any distro. Where it shines is declaring the complete system configuration (including installed programs and their configuration) in its config file (on file-based configuration, I wouldn't really consider blendos a viable competitor).
The ease with which I can only commit separate hunks with lazygit has ensured I use it for commits, too. And once I've opened it to do the commit, I may as well also press P.
Well, for starters: