81–90 of 282 posts
> Ubuntu is the most widely deployed Linux operating system Nitpicking, but I thought Android was the most widely deployed Linux OS around...
> Ubuntu is the most widely deployed Linux operating system Nitpicking, but I thought Android was the most widely deployed Linux OS around...
Idk, just speculating to maybe get the thought process
> Ubuntu is the most widely deployed Linux operating system Nitpicking, but I thought Android was the most widely deployed Linux OS around...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GNU sort of lost its way around GPLv3 (it gives cloud services a free pass, but not locally run software, which is the opposite of letting users control what their computer does). That killed most of the “user freedom” enthusiasm of the early days. These days, there’s the AGPL, but that’s mostly used like the BSL (“if you want to use AGPL in production, pay us”), than for bootstrapping freedom-respecting compute envi…
What kind of free pass would you want to give to locally run software? Can't you already do anything you want to GPL code locally?
By letting cloud services that use GPL software stay closed source it actively encourages development of cloud based tooling in a commercial context and users end up getting forced to sign up with and connect to a closed source cloud service they have even less control over than traditional locally running closed source software.
I think Stallmans motivation for the FSF includes a story about modifying a driver for a printer to support new features. Now imagine if that printer had a cloud based interface and imagine how the GPL would help Stallman add features for a new printer to it. It doesn't, if he wanted to fix the interface he would have to reverse engineer it from scratch. 40 years of FSF and it lets a decades old trend run circles around its goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't think you can realistically enforce a security boundary between root, and a user account that occasionally elevates. So stop doing that!
What should you do instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've accepted it at this point, but I wonder if the religious element of GNU tools and free software in general was as contentious way back when.
A little while ago I realized with a start that it's been years since I've heard anyone angrily insist on calling it "GNU/Linux", when that was constant background noise during the Slashdot era. One of those old fights that just faded away, I guess.
GNU is nowhere near as dominant in the non-kernel code that people run any longer.
And a lot of the GNU zealots who were particularly interested in getting credit with naming got old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The religious element of rust programmers Yeah. I too, hate the Rust Evangelically Orthodox Later Day Christians. Oh, wait... You're serious. What is religious about rewriting tools in Rust? Isn't that what most programmers do for fun and learning? Is it any more religious than worshiping Alan Kay or Dijkstra? > It makes me wonder how much is motivated by stuff other than what’s actually the best outcome. Looks in…
> What is religious about rewriting tools in Rust? "Religious" isn't being used to refer to people rewriting tools in Rust. It's used to refer to people zealously commenting on message boards that every single tool ever built should be rewritten in Rust, and if you aren't rewriting your tool in Rust, you're an idiot.
Ok, but between me, GP and the article, who said that? Where are the Rabid RIIR fans?
And before you misquote me, I said, why wouldn't you rewrite stuff in Rust, if the status quo is ridden with bugs, and safety issues? And why shouldn't a Linux distro switch to it if they desire.