Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

gyptazy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 251 posts

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#191

Post by direwolf20 »

teekert wrote: post #184
direwolf20 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can society become less polarised if we normalise an extremely wide spectrum of different moral axioms? To reduce polarisation, people with extremist moral axioms must stop having them, which can't happen if extremist moral axioms are accepted.

For one, I think that the people you have put the "extreme" label on, are not as extreme as you think they are, and indeed could be quite agreeable when you'd seek them out and sit down with them over tea and try to communicate with them with more nuance than a 160 char message can deliver. Yes, you will be able to find examples that confirm your statement, but they are an exceedingly small minority, probably despise…

The people I put the "extreme" label on believe that it's okay to kill millions of people in order to increase your own strength.

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#192

Post by direwolf20 »

teekert wrote: post #175
rendx wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further and claim that anyone who sees themselves as "apolitical" just basically thinks their own opinion is the only true way to see things "rationally" (and as such "fact" and not an opinion; nothing to be "political" about), and everyone else is just plain wrong/mistaken. Since they're not ready to admit this to themselves and others, they hide behind the "apolitical" label. Otherwise they would see tha…

One can recognize the importance of defining processes for how decisions pertaining to a soceity are being made, and adhering to those, while, at the same time, trying not to judge views other than yours, or simply trying not to engage too much in debates pertaining to that process. In other words, you can choose not to let politics seep to much into your identify. I am a hacker, a baker of breads, a father, a debate…

Some views deserve to be judged. I've met people who genuinely believe there is nothing wrong with killing millions of people just because they aren't like you. Most people are horrified by that idea, but he isn't, he finds it quite normal, as normal as taking an umbrella because it's raining. I think it's okay to judge that.

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#193

Post by teekert »

direwolf20 wrote: post #176
teekert wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about governance of society, about how decisions concerning society are being made. About what processes we adhere to. About agreeing to follow those process together, instead of resorting to primitive things like violence.

then FOSS is political. It's about processes we adhere to and how decisions are made. Microsoft makes a decision to ban the ICC from Windows and has a process for this. Linux has a different process where they can't make that decision because it's impossible.

"Concerning society" is important here. We do not codify the use of FOSS in any laws. At most we have decided that people can make up licenses and that we agree to adhere to the terms of any creator stated in licenses. We don't say what those terms must be or how we come to those terms.

I just like some terms more than others, they work for me, I think they make the world a better, more interesting place. Where is the politics in that?

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#194

Post by direwolf20 »

throwaw12 wrote: post #106
positron26 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your comment sounds like American don't want to protest against Trump because it is too dangerous At this time, we are still openly committed to the 2nd amendment in defense of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and so on. I am encouraging others to participate in open-carry demonstrations to make it clear to the authoritarians that they will not get the intimidating optics of an unopposed crackdown against a helpless crowd th…

> At this time, we are still openly committed to the 2nd amendment in defense of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and so on. Has it ever worked? ICE is killing Americans, and you can't point your gun to them, its not lawful. If Trump tells ICE to seize all weapons in the US, or otherwise shoot people, you can't point your gun to them, its not lawful.

ICE killing Americans is also not lawful. Without law, you have anarchy. In anarchy, everything is allowed. Good luck.

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#195

Post by dijit »

direwolf20 wrote: post #150
teekert wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to work quite well. Perhaps together you can think of a cause to the rift, and try to actively fight it instead of each other. Start with commonalities, not differences. I think it’s important to, at the very least, never stop trying.

How extreme of moral axiom differences should we tolerate?

The question assumes we know what someone believes before we've spoken to them. That's the actual problem here, people are being excluded based on assumed beliefs rather than demonstrated behaviour.

Opinions evolve through exposure to different viewpoints, not through isolation from them. The homophobes and racists of the 80s who changed their minds didn't do so because they were shut out of communities - they changed because they were forced to actually interact with the people they'd made assumptions about. That contact broke down the assumptions.

When you exclude someone pre-emptively because you've decided what they must believe, you've eliminated the possibility of that evolution happening. You've also replicated the exact mechanism that made 80s bigotry so pernicious: denying participation based on identity or assumed characteristics rather than actual conduct.

Everyone thinks they're right. The racists thought they were right. The homophobes thought they were right. You think you're right. I think I'm right. That's why behaviour-based boundaries matter more than belief-based ones. Judge people on what they actually do in the space, not what you assume they think.

If your moral framework requires everyone to already agree with you before they're allowed to participate, you're not building a community - you're enforcing an orthodoxy. And orthodoxies don't evolve, they just calcify.

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#196

Post by teekert »

direwolf20 wrote: post #192
teekert wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can recognize the importance of defining processes for how decisions pertaining to a soceity are being made, and adhering to those, while, at the same time, trying not to judge views other than yours, or simply trying not to engage too much in debates pertaining to that process. In other words, you can choose not to let politics seep to much into your identify. I am a hacker, a baker of breads, a father, a debate…

Some views deserve to be judged. I've met people who genuinely believe there is nothing wrong with killing millions of people just because they aren't like you. Most people are horrified by that idea, but he isn't, he finds it quite normal, as normal as taking an umbrella because it's raining. I think it's okay to judge that.

I agree. I just want to tell you that those people are an exceedingly small minority.

To deny another human being the rights you enjoy is imho the same as denying yourself those rights (because I, as a 3rd person, see both people as equal, and otherwise there is a paradox). This is the basis of our justice system, we "put people away" in cages, and in some places even kill them, because they believed their right to swing their fist does not end at someone else's nose. But presumably they would not enjoy a fist to the nose themselves.

But does it mean "100% open borders"? (notice the 100%) Should those rights pertain to (higher) animals? (notice the "higher")

There is nuance to explore, there are many ways to be a humanist. I.e., dumping mosquito nets in a mosquito rich area may be seen as helping, but not to local mosquito net makers (and thus you are not helping anyone in the long term, because the mosquito net makers are all bankrupt).

There is always nuance. And there are always exceptions, and your statements generalize exceptions to much larger groups, demanding action on a scale that is unwarranted, imho. Both sides are responding vividly to exceptions, to lack of nuance, to 160 character statements in all caps.

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#197

Post by ahartmetz »

direwolf20 wrote: post #186
gnoack wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are misrepresenting this; Varlink is based on much more conventional UNIX technology than Dbus, which is decades old: You connect to a named UNIX socket through its socket file in the filesystem (man page: unix(7)). This is an old mechanism and it is known to work well. It does not require a broker service, it works right at system startup, and it does not require a working user database for permission ch…

What do you connect to, when you connect to varlink, if there is no broker service?

It's kinda weird to present this as a DBus alternative when it doesn't even offer the same facilities, particularly many-to-many communication.

Though I have a pretty good idea of where a Varlink broker would turn up and which init system it would be tied to.

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#198

Post by teekert »

direwolf20 wrote: post #191
teekert wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, I think that the people you have put the "extreme" label on, are not as extreme as you think they are, and indeed could be quite agreeable when you'd seek them out and sit down with them over tea and try to communicate with them with more nuance than a 160 char message can deliver. Yes, you will be able to find examples that confirm your statement, but they are an exceedingly small minority, probably despise…

The people I put the "extreme" label on believe that it's okay to kill millions of people in order to increase your own strength.

I'd love to have a beer with you, we could be at this all night haha.

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#199

Post by dijit »

iso1631 wrote: post #161
dijit wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up poor enough that my classmates called me "Tramp". Hand-me-downs so threadbare they could pass for actual rubbish, couldn't afford deodorant or adequate dental hygiene; the works. The 10-year-old £5 computer that barely wheezed into life was my escape into a world that genuinely didn't care about any of that. On the internet (1hr per day, courtesy of the local library), I was just the words on the screen. No…

So if someone wants to close your local library you wouldn't have a problem? If someone decides that you can't have a £5 computer, you have to subscribe to a computer service? Read this and tell me free software is not politics https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

You're right that free software philosophy is political, and I benefited enormously from that. But there's a crucial difference between "this tool has political implications" and "you must actively engage with every political cause to participate." I could contribute to GNU projects without Stallman asking about my views beyond software freedom, the code compiled or it didn't, the patch worked or it didn't. The philosophy was clear, but participation didn't require political conformity beyond that shared goal. What I'm pushing back against is the insistence that every space must become a venue for every political discussion, where "everything is political" becomes "you must actively care about my specific causes in the way I care about them, right now, in this space."

The beauty of libraries and cheap computers wasn't just that they existed through political decisions, it's that I could use them without performing any particular political identity beyond their core function. If libraries close or computing becomes subscription-only, I'll fight that because access matters. But I can defend access whilst wanting spaces where the primary focus remains the technical work. The right to read is worth defending. So is the right to just read, without every reading group becoming a political caucus.

Re: FOSDEM 2026 – Open-Source Conference in Brussels – Day#1 Recap

#200

Post by pjmlp »

direwolf20 wrote: post #130
dwedge wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everyone I spoke to this year had issues with the trains into Belgium. Cancellations, delays, strikes.

Trains coming from the east via Berlin->Cologne were significantly disrupted.

As usual, there is hardly a day that doesn't happen, and it got worse this year as they finally started some repairs on critical routes, suppressing many alternatives, or average speeds.
Post reply on HN