Signal devs don't intend to support Apple M1 • Hacker News Board

Re: Signal devs don't intend to support Apple M1

#21

Post by blitzar » Wed, Nov 10, 2021, 11:41 AM UTC

t0mas88 wrote: post #16

blitzar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Signal has a policy around not talking about future features aka only we invent things here. open source in name only

Open source doesn't automatically mean community driven. Signal could have an entirely closed roadmap and plan, while still allowing you to see the source and fork it if you want something different. It's over the top to call that "open source in name only". It's real open source, you can do what you want with the source. The project roadmap is just not community driven.

> It's over the top to call that "open source in name only"

App updates roll out and the 'source' doesnt change for 11 months? Thats 'real open source'.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26345937

Re: Signal devs don't intend to support Apple M1

#22

Post by waych » Wed, Nov 10, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

viccuad wrote: post #14

waych wrote: post #12

Wow what abusive behavior! Just because a tool is OSS doesn't mean it will be community driven, and it also doesn't mean the publisher is subservient to the community's whims. OSS just means you have options when you are done with the publisher. The irony is that the whining is support for M1. If this was about running on something less proprietary than Apple maybe I would sympathize more. Signal is a great product.…

> OSS just means you have options when you are done with the publisher. Except that with signal you don't have options as they only allow their signed clients.

The fact that client binaries are signed doesn't mean you can't use your own client. It means you can't make your own binaries and pretend they were from Signal.

You aren't suggesting that Signal share their code signing key are you?

Re: Signal devs don't intend to support Apple M1

#23

Post by waych » Wed, Nov 10, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #19

waych wrote: post #12

Wow what abusive behavior! Just because a tool is OSS doesn't mean it will be community driven, and it also doesn't mean the publisher is subservient to the community's whims. OSS just means you have options when you are done with the publisher. The irony is that the whining is support for M1. If this was about running on something less proprietary than Apple maybe I would sympathize more. Signal is a great product.…

> Just because a tool is OSS Signal is only Open source by name, as they don't authorize anyone to make their own clients. FOSS is about power to the end users, and Signal is fighting hard against it.

It's opensource by license.

Nobody has to be "authorized" to do anything with code shared. That's not how the licenses work.

> FOSS is about power to the end users, and Signal is fighting hard against it.

"power" here means the ability to derive your own forks (see https://github.com/dennisameling/Signal-Desktop).

Being OSS doesn't mean they have to be fully transparent on their plans, nor does it mean they have to cave to abusive behavior in PRs, feature requests or forums.