Digital-Citizen

6 ms·

1.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
> None of this inspires confidence that the code can be trusted. It's a shame this code isn't so good out of the box, but for all we know there are proprietary devices purporting to do the same job which also have poor code. Th
2.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
Because a lot of GPL'd software is best of breed and (contrary to other threads here) apparently integrates quite well. It says a lot about Apple's view of their customers (none of it good) that they'd rather distribute a bad
3.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
Not according to the Ziff-Davis article they haven't: - Microsoft's Mark Russinovich presumably heard what Stallman said at his talk (which was said to be a "mostly standard talk"). Stallman's talk usually includes
4.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
> A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. > Stallman cannot really make any such demands. That those programs are licensed under one of the BSD licenses doesn't have anything to do with Stallman's use of the term &q
5.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
There's no call to write in such patronizing ways. It should be up to the user to decide whether to take on updates, regardless of what you think because that's their computer and not yours and you each deserve control over the co
6.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
According to the article, "Apple said the update does not require any user interaction and is deployed automatically.". There's nothing moral about using "silent updates" (updates the user has no opportunity to deci
7.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
Neither the MIT X11 license (one should be careful to identify which MIT license is being talked about as MIT has used many licenses for software) nor the modified (or 3-clause) BSD license look out for patent treachery. For all the user kn
8.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
The public domain isn't recognized everywhere and licenses like Creative Commons Zero (CC0) which has a fallback of being all-permissive for regimes where a public domain won't work doesn't look out for patent treachery. The
9.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
Because Mozilla (unlike most other web browser publishers) publishes free software -- software users are allowed to run, inspect, modify, and share at any time for any reason. This is known as respecting a user's software freedom. Prog
10.
by Digital-Citizen 7y ago
> This is still user-hostile bullshit and some people > at Microsoft really need to be beaten with a rubber > hose until they get it through their heads that they > don't own our devices. If you run proprietary software on
11.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
I agree; I think this thread and a couple similar threads (basically repeating the same objection) are vastly overrated. Not spying + hardware and software under user control is far more important than whatever someone considers lagging vid
12.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
Not only is that acceptable, if they deliver a device that respects the user's software freedom, respects the user's privacy, leaves the user in control as much as they wish to pursue (with both software and user-serviceable hardw
13.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
You're correct and worse still is the reception on discussion sites like these: it's sad that people encourage us to take pity on billionaire organizations that apparently don't hire and train the people needed to do decent w
14.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
If the Input Mono Condensed you're referring to comes from https://djr.com/input/ I recommend reviewing that font's license. https://djr.com/license/ is a non-free license (the license d
15.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
I don't know what Librem 5 will offer in the end, but I think your response argues a false dichotomy with zero evidence. There is no "automated transparent and trusted global support infrastructure [...that requires] zero user int
16.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
But we've had media lying before, media lying about objectively important issues of life and death (far more important than allegations of Trump campaign colluding with Russians) such as headline NYT articles alleging justification for
17.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
It's important not to lump together the proprietary browsers (where the limit you speak of can only be worked around if the proprietors allow) and free software browsers which respect your software freedom, like Firefox. You could modi
18.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
Firefox has been and continues to be libre in the sense of software freedom -- free to run, inspect, share, and modify. Anyone who complains about how Mozilla runs their variant of Firefox should thank Mozilla for that licensing choice so t
19.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
> They [Microsoft] have lost me for life. I'll be switching to Mac and Linux from here on out. The power you rightly object to is not limited to Microsoft, or the Windows OS. That power comes from the power of proprietary software o
20.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
It's a nonfree license (which alone is sufficient to make me look elsewhere for functional replacements); the license disallows commercial redistribution and contains no language that permits modification. This license is also sufficie
21.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
> I do not have the time or the money to personally develop a secure web browser for the rest of the world, nor does any other individual. Your demand is unreasonable. Apparently some people do, that's why we have Firefox derivative
22.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
> I want a browser that is reliable, high quality, respects my privacy, and nothing else. I don't want addons baked into it. I don't want to be spied on. I recommend that you look into what you're getting with software fre
23.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
How did you reach the conclusion that you had to trust ProtonVPN? > For VPN service, I trust Mozilla more than to just about anybody: they're nonprofit, have clear and transparent governance, have many mission-driven employees, and
24.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
It's not, of course, as you point out. One can't defend the ethics or law on the basis of what's good for a particular political party. One should come to a proper understanding of relevant US law, and US jurisdictional limit
25.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
I don't find it hard to identify what's so awful about amazon.com even if there's currently no other existing website to do the same job at the same scale: - I think that Javascript is widely used needlessly forcing lots of u
26.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
Here's another interview with Wolff: Transcript should arrive here eventually: https://therealnews.com/stories/amazon-gets-3-billion-in-ny-... Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlECXGQfVyY So
27.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
Perhaps but I think that point misses the underlying issue at hand -- with proprietary software users don't get any real control over the software. Even the corporate-friendly computer press reported plenty of stories about Microsoft&#
28.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
It's tough for me to say because I've read multiple estimates and they vary by a factor of 10. Amazon's promises https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/amazon-selects-new... are one thing, what actual
29.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
Richard Wolff in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTth4Rb25H4 does a good job of concisely making the points on just how bad a deal this is for New York and Virginia (which are together funding over half of the costs of this
30.
by Digital-Citizen 8y ago
It's unfortunate that neither this BBC Micro game nor the Fort Apocalypse game are free software -- software one is free to run, inspect, share, and modify (even commercially). The Crazee Rider software seems to lack a license at all.

More ›