Pup Biru @ pupbiru @aussie.zone

Posts

0

Comments

870

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm sure Fedora is full of binary blobs and not-so-free software

fedora is staunchly opposed to non-free software in their default distro … that spat a few weeks ago with OBS was related to that AFAIK

unsure about like signed blobs for “security” services but i imagine they’d be very limited, and optional

rather than sticking a white label on Fedora and call it something else

but for what benefit? no matter what’s trying to be achieved, starting with a very full-featured, robust OS that’s widely used is going to serve you very well… not just technically (less work for the same outcome), but for human reasons

there are loads of guides out there for how to fix fedora issues, few for guix… loads of RPMs that are compatible with fedora, and i can only imagine fewer packages for guix

and then if you’re talking about server OSes - and actually workstations too - managing them with tools like ansible etc… fedora is going to have off the shelf solutions

just Fedora with different theme

well, the actual software and configuration i’d argue aren’t the important part - owning the infrastructure is the important part… package mirrors, distribution methods (eg a website), being able to veto or replace certain packages, and the branding (or regulation) that draws people to it… being able to roll out a security patch to every installation without a 3rd party okaying it, for example

i’d say if it happens it should start with focusing on:

• government and workstation (this is important first to have control and independence over so that government isn’t beholden to the whims of foreign companies)
• then server (maybe - idk really if that’s worth it though; it’s a whole can of compatibility worms and adoption expense)
• then user desktop

though there is the argument that workstation and user desktop are close enough to each other that user desktop should be above server, but i’d imagine it’d be more of a “home user” than gamer situation. i could imagine some regulations around refurbishing old tech with this kind of OS too, and this would be more about low spec machines (that’d help workstations too)

alternative POV: it’s entirely FOSS so there’s little control that can be exerted from its use. it’s also entirely free, so use is extracting value without providing anything in return. by its use, you’re taking resources to maintain, host, etc and providing nothing in return

similar reason to why i don’t use ecosia with an ad blocker: by blocking ads you’re using their resources without giving back and thus you’re taking resources away from the charity

i’d suggest switching out openvpn for wireguard if you can… at this point, openvpn is basically considered legacy

make sure to use a wire guard VPN instead of openvpn

alternatively, i’ve found the bulmer peak concept to be entirely real: a drink sometimes helps you to just do rather than spending too much time thinking about if what you’re doing is best… it can help with decision paralysis on the micro scale

that said, you can train yourself out of decision paralysis and as someone gets more experienced this is likely to be less and less helpful

i would guess linking this with imaging satellites would be particularly useful: spot aircraft with over the horizon radar, and then automagically use that to direct imaging to the area so you can see exactly what’s happening

i hope so too. australia does look to be pretty doggedly attached to AUKUS, but there’s probably room for multiple alliances

and similarly, any metric tied to a reward is no longer a metric worth measuring for the purposes of maintaining system health

in a structured and dynamic system, order could be randomised - not entirely, but between the “tiers” of contributors… it looks as though if everyone submitted detailed attribution, that could then be used to dynamically vary order so that nobody gets “first” for every view for the same amount of effort as others

i don’t disagree, but i’d say that humans are, and will be responsible regardless of the system used

we’re living in the most peaceful time ever, with the highest quality of life… i’m not saying that fully socialist systems wouldn’t produce that, but i am saying compared with most of human history, things really aren’t that bad, and i’m not sure that it’s worth paying in human lives for a radical (and i’m using that world to mean big; not bad) change because the outcome is uncertain

Theoretically and practically. We have evidence for this throughout the last 130 years.

it sure is great that the USSR treated ukraine with respect aye… that holodomor sure is a lark

revolution remains the sole path to end the bloodshed

we are living in the most peaceful time in human history… a world with humans just isn’t going to be a utopia - we aren’t that good

Cuba today has much better LGBTQ rights than anywhere else in the world

but you’ve pulled 1 example out of many, many counter examples

Corporate bullshit and stock markets and whatnot are magnified in impact and scale in Capitalist systems

and authoritarian tendencies are magnified in impact and scale in socialist systems because they are by definition centralised - that’s not to say it’s inevitable, just that anyone living under these systems needs to be hyper aware of those issues and respond accordingly

nothing is perfect

As for "trying to keep things small," that's been tried. Trust busting was attempted, protectionism has been attempted, but regardless of will, material processes continue.

i think the closest we have to that is the EU with things like the DMA which is making a dent… with strong regulatory authority that’s resistant to capture, it’s not impossible to regulate these things… the same is true of socialism: you need strong regulatory authorities that are resistant to capture to stop people from abusing the system for the own personal interests

As for Socialism being a necessity, it's true. It will have various forms, but eventually as production gains in complexity it necessitates public ownership and planning to continue to be efficient.

i think perhaps we should define what we actually mean - i think socialism is necessary in some part to tackle the issues we face (healthcare, housing, something akin to UBI, etc)

but i think no single system is going to be the silver bullet to all our problems: it’s going to take a long and sustained effort over many generations to figure out the right mix of all the systems we have, and it’s absolutely not going to happen in a big bang

theoretically

and now you’re arguing for massive bloodshed and forcing people to live the way you want, in potentially awful living conditions for a lot of people (i certainly, as an LGBT person, would not want to live in any previous or current socialist state) for a long time for theoretical improvement

just a symptom of later stages of Capitalism

i don’t disagree of course, and i wasn’t saying capitalism is the only way; i think capitalism like this is absolute trash as well… i’m simply saying that those qualities are neither intrinsic to, nor exclusively found in socialist systems

You cannot maintain the small stages forever

perhaps, but honestly i don’t think we’ve actually even tried. we jumped straight from feudalism to some form of capitalism to some socialism. we’ve never had a system that tried to keep things small - and i’m not saying we should either necessarily

but these arguments are all reasonably theoretical

Socialism is a necessity

socialism is perhaps part of a solution but dealing in absolutes is rarely ever correct

i don’t disagree, but socialism won’t solve that just by virtue of it being different… global socialism, perhaps but on the country level it’s just not. socialism just aligns local incentives

the important thing is not socialism: it’s a government that deals with negative externalities

socialism tends to do better at that simply because often it often does better at long-term planning (but that’s not a given either), but capitalism without corporate bullshit, stock markets, etc (ie actual ownership over a business rather than just ownership over a vague thing where you’re only concerned with line goes up not long term business health) has pretty much the same drivers: long term sustainability and this holding others to account for their negative externalities

all of the above listed counties have very solid healthcare and are not entirely socialist. what’s your point?

socialism is not a requirement for being a place that treats people with respect and dignity; nor is it a silver bullet

and you believe a revolution in the US will help the third world?

socialist countries are plenty capable of being exploitative too. a revolution doesn’t change the people - it changes the power structures

the nordic states seem to be doing pretty well at riding a good line, and whilst australia is far from socialist, what we have is working great too

accident? no of course not… but consistency… a big bang “revolution” is the easy way out… it’s so easy to say you’ll fight for what you believe in when you don’t have to see what it’ll entail or what will come out the other side of it but the reality is far more bloody and is absolutely not what you have in your head afterwards