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

Grayjay Desktop App

grayjay.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 332 posts

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#221

Post by ThatMedicIsASpy »

bisby wrote: post #115

Launching the Linux release and noticed in the logs: Directories:User Directory: /home/bisby/Grayjay And there is a directory there now. I absolutely hate having stuff automatically create anything in my home directory like this. Ideally, this should be following XDG directory guidelines on linux: https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/

I gave too many shits about my home dir once too..

My only correct way today is create your own home dir inside your home dir to combat this hell hole of never ending config junk in your home dir

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#222

Post by j1elo »

lrvick wrote: post #205

I love the right to repair work Louis Rossmann does, and this project goal as a whole, but this license is a major step backwards for software distribution with high assurances of security, freedom and privacy. Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels require a true Open Source license to function legally. The license thus forces users to download unsigned non-reproducib…

I read the license and of course IANAL but it seems clear that Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels can package and distribute their own reproducible builds of this software, as long as it is "free of charge for non-commercial purposes", isn't it?

(a FOSS license would also work, but if I have learned something in HN before, is that don't FOSS if you ever want to make money from something while preventing others from making money off of it)

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#223

Post by doodlesdev »

gf000 wrote: post #217
bisby wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, to be clear, I dont wan't Grayjay data in my user directory AT ALL. Portable is basically what I want, I'm just very untactfully dropping feedback about where the data is placed. Even with the "Portable" file, it creates a directory `/home/bisby/Grayjay`. I don't want that. No app should ever put a file or directory directly in `/home/bisby` without me asking it to. The Linux standard for "where should an app…

Well, ideally I would like the OS solving this problem by simply chrooting/sandboxing apps to their own little worlds, with a proper API giving them optionally a way to the user's file system, similarly to android and iOS.

That is possible on Linux [0], but this kind of separation comes with its own can of worms. However, if your only worry is access to folders, Flatpak applications keep all of their data in a folder away from your home directory and use "portals" to access your system [1]. The security of the sandbox is debatable [2], but I would say if your biggest goal is containing non-malicious but badly behaving applications from messing with your system, then it's a very good solution, given you are comfortable with using Flathub (as most distributions won't build Flatpaks) and with the performance/integration impact this distribution method has.

[0]: https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/basic-concepts.html

[1]: https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/sandbox-permissions.html

[2]: https://flatkill.org/2020/

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#224

Post by margana »

lkurtz wrote: post #79

Recommending (and running) `xattr -c` can be extremely dangerous. I would suggest withholding Mac releases until they can be distributed/run safely.

Do you also suggest never releasing any software for Linux because there is no megacorporation there policing what software you should and shouldn't run?

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#225

Post by margana »

lkurtz wrote: post #97
crazygringo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone not very familiar, is there any legitimate reason why they say "Our Apple signing/notarization is not entirely done yet"? It feels extremely suspicious, given that I download lots of other popular utility software from independent devs and I've never had to do that before.

There are a couple of legitimate reasons, namely the expense/KYC process of an Apple Developer Program membership and/or the complexity of integrating signing + notarization into existing build pipelines (but XCode does makes it pretty straightforward to cut an ad-hoc release that is signed and notarized). In my opinion at least, the most likely reason is that Apple is refusing to notarize the software. If this is th…

Apple refusing to notarize it actually makes me want to use it more. That means Rossmann and his associates have got under Apple's skin enough that they would try to sabotage projects that he is involved with.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#226

Post by em-bee »

ferbivore wrote: post #220
lrvick wrote: post #205

I love the right to repair work Louis Rossmann does, and this project goal as a whole, but this license is a major step backwards for software distribution with high assurances of security, freedom and privacy. Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels require a true Open Source license to function legally. The license thus forces users to download unsigned non-reproducib…

FUTO develops, for the most part, proprietary software that they plan to monetize. The license choice isn't some mistake that you can get them to recant by explaining the virtues of the AGPL and third party distributors. (They're already aware of these things; one of the products under their umbrella is Immich, which was relicensed to AGPL after they started employing the original developer, as a compromise between h…

while that is technically mostly correct, that does not properly reflect their intentions. they most certainly are interested in allowing you to fork their software as a user. but what they are also interested in is to prevent a fork to take revenue from the original developers.

so you can most likely (i don't know the details) fork and change and redistribute the code. what you can not do is exploit that commercially.

this goes in the directions of the discussions started by bruce perens that we need to rethink FOSS, because funded companies are taking advantage and making a profit from FOSS without paying the developers.

it is not obvious that FUTO's approach is the right one. it is an attempt at addressing the problem, and i expect that it will take more such experiments to shake out what the best approach to this problem really is.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#227

Post by RobotToaster »

koen31 wrote: post #106
RobotToaster wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right to be sceptical, they still have their proprietary license that basically forbids forking.

Grayjay dev here, forking is not forbidden.

So the license has been changed from the previous futo one, but there's still heavy restrictions on what anyone can do with it:

> You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.

>Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.

>You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the Licensor in the software. Any use of the Licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law.

To me that says that if FUTO decide to paywall the entire app, nobody is allowed to fork it to remove that.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#228

Post by RobotToaster »

lrvick wrote: post #205

I love the right to repair work Louis Rossmann does, and this project goal as a whole, but this license is a major step backwards for software distribution with high assurances of security, freedom and privacy. Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels require a true Open Source license to function legally. The license thus forces users to download unsigned non-reproducib…

> You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.

>Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.

>You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the Licensor in the software. Any use of the Licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law.

To me that says that if FUTO decide to paywall the entire app, nobody is allowed to fork it to remove that.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#229

Post by isametry »

gf000 wrote: post #217
bisby wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, to be clear, I dont wan't Grayjay data in my user directory AT ALL. Portable is basically what I want, I'm just very untactfully dropping feedback about where the data is placed. Even with the "Portable" file, it creates a directory `/home/bisby/Grayjay`. I don't want that. No app should ever put a file or directory directly in `/home/bisby` without me asking it to. The Linux standard for "where should an app…

Well, ideally I would like the OS solving this problem by simply chrooting/sandboxing apps to their own little worlds, with a proper API giving them optionally a way to the user's file system, similarly to android and iOS.

…and macOS. Sandboxed Mac apps get their own little home directory in `~/Library/Containers/`. To access anything else, they need to ask through system APIs.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#230

Post by xmcqdpt2 »

j1elo wrote: post #222
lrvick wrote: post #205

I love the right to repair work Louis Rossmann does, and this project goal as a whole, but this license is a major step backwards for software distribution with high assurances of security, freedom and privacy. Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels require a true Open Source license to function legally. The license thus forces users to download unsigned non-reproducib…

I read the license and of course IANAL but it seems clear that Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels can package and distribute their own reproducible builds of this software, as long as it is " free of charge for non-commercial purposes ", isn't it? (a FOSS license would also work, but if I have learned something in HN before, is that don't FOSS if you ever want to m…

You can take a copy of Debian and resell it or put it in a product and sell that. That’s a pretty important freedom of free software.
Post reply on HN