unexpectedteapot @ unexpectedteapot @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

37

Joined

3 yr. ago

It is not about "bragging" or whatever. Nor is it about "bad" or "good".

By funding or promoting the use of Google products, you would be funding litigation and influence such as lobbying to keep poor regulation as it is, if not worse. You would be funding their acquisitions of great tech and startups that might offer a more ethical and/or free technology. You would be funding their poaching of said engineers and valuable hardware intellectual property.

Simply put, it is a counterproductive and an unsustainable practice.

That being said, their amazing engineers, and technical value of their hardware are irrelevant to this community, post and comment. That simply doesn't excuse their entire business model being built on breaches of privacy and other forms of curbing user freedoms.

Fairphone, Librem, PinePhone, f(x)tec, etc. are available alternatives, yes.

Even a OnePlus is better than directly funding and supporting the adversary organisation that is one of the biggest surveillance capitalism corporations on earth.

There is a tad bit of difference between caring about an opinion and tolerating one. Obama's opinions on AI are unqualified pop culture nonsense. They wouldn't be relevant in an actual discussion that would cite relevant technical, economical and philosophical aspects of AI as points.

I keep seeing this idea everywhere. Buy a Google phone and install another OS.

It is completely absurd to fund the exact adversaries you are running away from, while consuming, without contributing a dime, merely a piece of free software. (It is only a small piece of freedom because none of the hardware is free, and some binary blobs [incl. potential backdoors] will still be present in the alternative OS no matter which one it is.)

This is unsustainable, terrible, damaging advice. Stop giving it.

73 million for a few years of a defederated Mastodon fork. Yeah, totally not fraud.

How about you read the one link you are commenting on before asking for another? It is in the article.

"Let the votes decide the quality of the content" is capitalist rhetoric that was the start of reddit's end. It is not an argument, it is not a principle to stand behind, and it most definitely is not a better alternative to guidelines the community can vote on.

I am aware of the difference in philosophy taken by both Gnome and KDE, but would you mind elaborating on the 'assholes' bit?

Honestly, I am always appalled by most "pop"-tech journalists like these. They either just repost the tech specs with the least nuance known to mankind, or they make absurd assumptions by having weird expectations (i.e: the infamous Cuphead review) going in. Seems like in this case it is both!

I attribute this to the much centralisation that completely deformed the internet, and a totalitarian attitude to criticism by critics (hypotactic, isn't it?) they remove and/or make it very hard to have a discussion on their articles.

Back before much of this centralisation of the internet, low-effort popcorn reviews like these would be absolutely panned in the very visible comment section. Also, shitty editorialised titles (which by the way usually aren't even by the author) like these were not as prevalent without massive scrutiny.

Not gonna happen, the developer made it quite clear from the get-go. Also, their community are quite hostile against it and pretty much most FOSS stuff for some reason.

I can see a fork taking what is useful about it (UI/UX) and adopting solid backends (federation, proper VoIP with screen sharing, etc.)

I understand the sentiment, but I do not come to the same conclusion that of increasing accessibility via offering more features in unfree proprietary software. The intended consequences of this were publicised by US Justice Department in their uncovering of Microsoft's memo labelled Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish which outlines how this eventually leads to less, not more, accessibility.

That aside, Microsoft Windows already supported ZIP which is an open standard. The addition of RAR, which is a proprietary unfree standard, is actually less open.

...and kids, this is why you (A)GPLv3 your code. Always.

It's like the other comments are living in a parallel universe.

What part of the article did they actually read? Isn't the Slack/Electron resource utilisation screenshot enough to prove an important point?

No, Electron-based applications are not better than "they used to be."

We all fucking know why Electron got all of these companies interested in making applications with it: cheap, probably imported labour to build applications. That's it. And no, it is not better "DX" either. NPM and the NodeJS ecosystem in general are toxic and unsustainable for larger applications.

They "don't" allow it, that's how licenses work.

I keep seeing comments like these on source available nonfree software, but it really doesn't factor in the fact that older software is NOT going to be used due to bugs, features missing, technical debt, secuity vulnerabilities, etc. So unless it is forked (i.e: OpenTofu), it is as good as useless for everyone but hobbyists.

That fuck them mentality won't get you anywhere. Your phone is a communications device. You need others to be using free protocols and software, otherwise your phone will be useless.

Speaking of Mozilla, the project they dropped and fired all of their employees working on it all while giving CEO a million dollar raise, the same one that provided most of the performance improvements in the Quantum update, Servo is targetting being an embedded solution. https://floss.social/@servo/110780173168763670

Your public domain assumption doesn't have to apply to others, legally or ideologically.

Data ownership does exist in the Fediverse, in fact it is one of its selling points that you can set up your server and own the data instead of using a surveillance capitalist SaaS that stores, manipulates and imposes legal rights over your data. Applications like Mastodon do send a federation request to other instances to delete data if submitters want to. Additionally, some users put licenses on their profile that might have restrictions (i.e: CC non-commerical, etc.) on what you are legally allowed to do with the data.

So no, accessing the data is not the same as using or processing it for many people, legally too in several parts of the world. Also, "innocuous curiosities" label is entirely subjective.

It is free software. You can spin it up on your device, or go to any cheap hosting provider and host it there.

This aged like milk.

Am I the only one thinking how problematic that product is?

I guess 'think of the children' only comes up when governments want to ban end-to-end encryption or ask for ID when viewing porn, but everyone is dandy with addictive products advertisements targeted at children such as the one in the meme, gambling in video games, toy companies exploiting children, and more...