201–210 of 281 posts
Here's another notion open source alternative: https://affine.pro/
Although a big selling point for Anytype is that it is local-first. My main gripe with Evernote now, is that in its effort to be a collaborative app, there is a lot of network latency for edits on my mobile device. By comparison, NotesNook is local-first and super fast.
From the docs on self-hosting. I am not a security expert, does anyone know if this is still considered safe? Feels weird that anyone can download my data, even if it is encrypted
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Open source is the same as free software. It is a marketing term for free software, that defines the same concept in more practical terms. If you actually read the article you linked, you would have known that.
Open source is not the same as free software. There are broadly two camps: Camp 1 who advocate for free software & free software alone, and Camp 2 who advocate for "open source" being an all-encompassing umbrella term for a few things, including free software. Those in Camp 1 are typically not supportive of the goals of those in Camp 2. Those in Camp 2 do often try and equivocate the two terms.
It really is the whole point of it, define more clearly what criteria must be fulfilled for software to be considered free software.
I'm sorry to hijack the thread but as someone forced to use Notion as a team wiki, please improve the performance! I can't emphasize this enough. The Notion subreddit is filled with complaints: if that's not a wake up call to every single PM at Notion, I don't know what is. Stop shipping features until the perf is a joy to your users. It's mind-boggling to me that companies would prio anything over fixing perf outsid…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what is the appropriate term then for "source code freely available, but cannot be used for commercial use?" I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it.
> I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo Apart from 20+ years of historical use in that way?
MIT license restrict commercialization. Is the MIT license not open source then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Open source is the same as free software. It is a marketing term for free software, that defines the same concept in more practical terms. If you actually read the article you linked, you would have known that.
It's not, because Free Software handles practical and ethical advantages as an indivisible unit, while open source focus only on promoting practical advantages.
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt
[1]: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=268758...
This is really nice, but I think the perennial curse of technology people is producing " , but with " People want a thing, not an ideal, and they'll sell their soul to get the thing. At this point, it's actually being surprised by this that is the ludicrous position. Philosophies are a differentiator for a very small portion of population. If you want them to buy into ideals, you've taken on two problems: Make a thin…
Normally I would agree with this. But with Notion in particular, and how heavily they're pushing Notion AI, I could see some c-level exec types being uncomfortable with the idea of Notion (or any managed/hosted service) to store trade secrets, company IP, etc. When a company is pushing AI features as heavily as Notion is, it raises questions how Notion is planning to (or already using) your private data for fine tuni…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it. Because that is the definition of "Open Source"[0]. As was already said, "source available" is the correct term here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
Sorry but this is not the definition of "open source", I would argue there is only a conceptual and cultural definition of "open source". What you are linking to is The Open Source Initiative (OSI) Foundation's declaration called the "Open Source Definition". They are a single organization, that have done a tremendous job at trying to come up with a global and shared legal framework to which people can license code u…
The idea of freedom existed before both documents. The idea of Open Source was proposed in 1998 [0], and the OSI was created to define it in the same year [1]. This is not at all equivalent.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...
"any-sync networks are permissionless. This means that anyone who knows the IP and port of the coordinator node can connect to it, create new spaces, or download existing encrypted objects. Data inside spaces is always secure, as it requires space encryption keys to read it." From the docs on self-hosting. I am not a security expert, does anyone know if this is still considered safe? Feels weird that anyone can downl…