The Free Software movement wasn’t really anti-commercial, they explicitly allow commercial purposes as part of the freedoms to protect, it’s part of the first freedoom they defend, “freedom zero”.

And it’s not like the open source movement wasn’t inherently political either… wanting more companies to join the movement is actually a political position.

But also, it’s not like the Free Software movement didn’t want to have more companies adopt their philosophy… they did want that, I mean that would have been awesome if it had happened. And when possible the FSF has actively tried to convince companies to get on board, they even have run programs to help companies promote themselves as certified by the FSF, such as the “Respects Your Freedom (RYF)” certification.

What makes the Free Software movement different is that they actively see proprietary software as evil. They see freedom as a right, something mandatory, not something to merely be “open” to. Going out of your way to not use closed source software, to the point of crippling yourself digitally if necessary, is then the ethically correct behavior. Whereas the “open source” movement sees it more as an option, something that can be useful but not strictly necessary, they wont consider it inherently bad/evil to use proprietary.

This is akin to someone considering buying ethically sourced shoes as something optional vs considering it a moral obligation so as to not be complicit to evil practices. Or say… saving energy being an option that might be convenient for you personally vs a moral obligation with the planet.

The business model at the time for most commercial projects was based on offering software as a product, not as a service, so they didn’t want to release their code. When eventually the shift towards services started to happen, companies gravitated towards the “open” side because it allowed them to take advantage of free software while retaining proprietary software for those situations in which it benefited them, without being flagged as “evil” by the same community they were working with.

Then I think we had a different understanding. My understanding was something akin to what bluesky does with the PDS, the data service just hosts data and hands it over to the other service which is the one actually doing the indexing of that data and aggregating it into communities. The data of the community might be hosted in the hosting services, but it’s accessed, indexed and aggregated through the authentication service.

The access management, the accounts, the distribution of data, etc. that’s still in the server managing the federation. That’s the way I understood it, at least (I’m not the person that originally started this train, that was @TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca ).

This allows the content to potentially not be completely lost if an instance dies because it would be easier to carry your data to another instance without losing it. It’s the same principle as in bluesky but applied to the fediverse.

it is more interesting to have users to build a local community than just being a storage server.

Imho, it comes down to how much you care about the content of the community you are building. The reason I’m in lemmy.ml and not some smaller instance is because of problems like the ones showcased here.

If I could self-host my own content I would not mind being somewhere else. In fact, I’m considering setting up something through brid.gy. The fact that there isn’t a separation of the hosting means that if I want to secure my content I need to have my own 1-person instance which is not something the protocol is very well suited for. Plus it’s likely most lemmy instances would not federate with it anyway since, understandably, they may prefer an allowlist approach rather than blocklist. The only sane way would be to have the instances have full control of the access as they are now, with storage being in a separate service that can be managed separately, the hosting service.

it is currently recommended to mod from local accounts

Would this change at all if there was a hosting service?

I expect you would still be recommended to mod from local accounts (the “authenticator”), even if the content hosting was a separate service. The local account would continue being the primary source of access to the content… note that having a separate hosting service doesn’t mean that the hosting service must be the one managing access to the content from the fediverse.

Hosting involves removal of content

Exactly. That means instances would not longer have that responsibility. That would be on the hosting service, meaning less pressure for the instance. Once they ban the user, the content would not be shown, it would be purged from the federating network of that instance, regardless of whether the hosting service actually deletes it or not (but I expect it would be better if the protocol makes it so banning a user sends a notification to the hosting service).

At the moment, if a Lemmy.world user spams CSAM content everywhere, other admins can reach out to the LW admins, they ban the users and purge the content.

It’s more complex than that, at the moment, because the purge also involves mirrored content in other federating instances. The interesting part is that after it’s triggered, then the process is pretty much automatic. When purging, Lemmy.world admins don’t have to manually go around asking to all the other instances to delete the content. The purge request is currently being notified automatically to instances federating with it. Why would it be any different for a content hosting service?

Since he said that the authenticator is the one that handles the communication & access, I expect banning the person from the authenticator would already automatically prevent anyone using that authenticator (or any other authenticator federating with it) from seeing the content.

As I understand it, the only thing the content provider would do is hosting the data. But access to that data would be determined by the service doing the access control, in the same way current instances are doing it.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood completely, I didn’t read it right. For some reason I thought you were talking about the router / wifi service being SOWPL.

IANAL, but I feel that coffee shop case would not be different if the software were under AGPL… if you are providing a service to other people, even if “the other people” are the customers to your shop, it could be argued that under the terms of the AGPL (not to be confused with GPL) they should have the right to see the source of the service that they are making use of.

But if the SOWPL requirement really does apply to private code that isn’t providing service to others, the implication would be that even if you are the only user (no coffee shop customer), and even if you are the only one who knows about it, you would still need to make the source code public in some way… which I feel this is very impractical and probably unenforceable anyway.

Even if you did block it, the fact that you blocked it is also trackable… so it might actually single you out even more, and it’ll still allow them to fingerprint your browser (you can test your fingerprint here).

It might make more sense to randomize / spoof the data so that it becomes inconsistent and useless so that you aren’t identifiable.

alias lt='ls -t | less'

Good idea! I’ll steal that but I would rather be able to give a directory path as parameter (and show in colors, and don’t pause if less than 1 page of content, and support the scrolwheel), also piping ls forces it to be 1 single column so might as well show more details, personally I’m gonna use this instead:

lt() { ls -t --color=always -Fgoh "$@" | less -RF --mouse; }

Also, printf '\a' will output an alert bell character which should make the terminal beep/blink and be highlighted for attention by your wm/compositor if it’s unfocused.

I have that aliased to a to get notified whenever a long running command finishes just by adding ;a at the end.

Aren’t all motivations emotional?

I mean… what would be the “logical” reason to use FOSS? I feel you can’t just use pure logic as a form of motivation, ever. Something that only uses logic and not emotions cannot take any action like a computer algorithm made of pure logic with no hard-coded instincts that simply operates mathematically, in reality there’s no logical reason to act in one direction or another… morals/goals are always emotionally grounded.

I feel the problem has more to do with social reasons, and pragmatic reasons.

What determines a behavior being “extreme” often has more to do with what is the average behavior of the people you surround yourself with. It’s a relative term.

In a world where everyone used free software and saw that as the norm, with things being designed around software being free, someone going the extra mile just to use proprietary software would be seen as “extreme” too.

Also, I’m not convinced that the numeric balance of who killed the most from the other side in a war is what should determine who is in the wrong.

That was long ago, I wonder if he might be using now GNU Guix, since it’s a GNU project.

• Pretty Good Privacy (PGP): The first implementation of a set of methods used for signing, encrypting, and decrypting texts, emails and files that ultimately became a standard called “OpenPGP” (RFC 4880), the program itself was commercial/proprietary. Sometimes “PGP” is also used to call the standard itself for short.

• GNU Privacy Guard (GPG): A popular Free and Open Source program from the GNU project that uses/implements the OpenPGP standards

If you are happy with the default, then just use the default.

Some of us use the terminal more than any other app, so I like my terminal to be super lightweight and snappy in all situations so it opens instantaneously (I doubt this one is like that though, if it has big dependencies like GTK / Qt), preferably if it does so without sacrificing in features (true color, things like sixel for graphics, allowing to set fallback fonts, maybe font ligatures, being able to set the app-id so my compositor can treat special terminal windows differently, etc).

The approach to taxing isn’t determined by this tool, but by the government. What this tool tries to prevent is hidden money exchanges, which affect both methods of taxing, not only flat taxes but also income-based taxes (since a hidden sale is giving the seller a hidden income and potentially placing them at a lower income tax class).

I’m expecting that if she has been scammed and her token was stolen, you can report this token to the police and they might be able to ask the banking system in which account was this token deposited, to hopefully trace the scammer back.

If so, this looks safer than the scams that ask grandmas to get giftcard codes.

But that’s assuming that the token was obtained from grandm’s bank and not that the grandma paid a scammer in some other untraceable way to obtain a fake token from the scammer. That would be a different kind of scam.

True. Also, it would be helpful to actually understand what kind of metadata is this referring to and specifically in which cases does this apply and which cases are exempt… because I expect that if the design of a service explicitly makes it so all the metadata you can collect is not helpful/reliable, then you wouldn’t be forced to redesign the service, you’ll just provide metadata that’s unreliable.

I feel these kind of measures never are really effective at stopping organized criminal activity (since those looking for a way will find it), what they are effective at is tracing/tracking non-criminal private use.

Does the DCO really offer a real guarantee? it looks like it just adds a Signed-off-by John line at the end of the commit, with no actual signature checking that enforces any particular version of a particular document is being acknowledged. IANAL but it doesn’t look like something proven to work in court to give legal protection.

Sure, it’s easier to simply add a sign-off-by line than actually accepting a legal agreement, so it reduces the barrier of entry, but if this were really enough to establish the conditions to shift liability then I don’t see why companies wouldn’t start using their own DCOs and extending them, essentially just being a more convenient CLA (which is a license agreement, not a copyright transfer, even if some might add terms that allow relicensing… which anyway is already possible given the project is already MIT licensed).

This depends entirely of what you mean by “of Windows” and what you mean by “for Linux”. This terminology is ambiguous.

Are you a Lemmy user for lemmy.world, or are you a lemmy.world user for Lemmy?

It’s also inconsistent because when they say, for example, “Microsoft Azure Linux Container Host for AKS”, they are talking about running a Microsoft Azure Linux Container inside of AKS, not a container that is meant to be used for running AKS within it…

Can you tell me the political affiliation of the creator of grep? I use that tool a lot.

I think it’s impossible to know for sure what the political thinking of the people involved in everything that happens to have contributed to something in your life is. Some people are not even easy to discern… some people are interpreted out of context, some people are just caught in drama.

I’d rather take advantage of their work, be thankful for it but without any sort of para-social intent, just thankful for the mathematical algorthms.