Being offensive and trying to be offensive are not mutually inclusive. And I wasn’t intending that as a personal rebuke or anything. Just commenting that, in the context of profanity censors, that is a word usually better left unsaid anyhow. Sorry if it came off as a comment on you specifically.
No plans really. They (members of party AfD) “JUST” had a meeting, in November, with a guy (Sellner) to make such plans. This was leaked in a journalistic research by Correctiv. Shameful and concerning as it is, they are two different things. Hopefully that Sellner is banned to enter Germany again (he’s been revoked visa to US and other countries already because of such talks). Now, my concern (personal opinion) is that other zealots (CSU, CDU) distance themselves as a ‘better’ alternative still being right extremists themselves…
Edit: To clarify, the “just” in quotes is to denote sarcasm because even if there’s a difference between planning, having a plan or implementing it, the matter at hand is very important indeed. Of course, it can’t be taken lightly. Still, is a relief that we are living the first, and not the second or third scenarios mentioned.
I disagree with calling CDU right extremist, because the majority isn’t. Calling all conservatives right extremist erodes the meaning of the term. Now we know that parts of the CDU are (likely) right extremist, but I’d say it’s a small minority.
They‘re not just talks but thanks for clarifying. I know most of this but others might not.
Hitler did the same. They just „talked“ in the beer halls back then. This ideology needs to be banned from holding german office ever again. Even the idea to deport people based on their heritage (not their immigration status) needs to disqualify from holding public office. Actually, using heritage, blood, genes or anything to distinguish between people that can be used this way needs to be outlawed immediately.
Also, the cdu has reighned over this country for decades and although I‘m not a fan, making them the same as the fascist party (afd) is very counterproductive.
Every party needs to reflect on this and try to reach their members who are in danger of becoming fascists and educate them and definitely need to make rules that fascist ideology can never be part of any party or the government.
Hehe, sometimes I wish that I could be snarky like that. ;) Good for you.
I have been told by numerous people these days that there are no free things in life. I write and contribute to FOSS software, and had that exact discussion.
Apparently, I do it to feel good, and for the prestige, a reward in itself. Also, I probably want to make up for something.
“Doing something for free is no excuse to do it badly.”
Some others don’t even know what “free” means." And some don’t believe it at all, that someone is paying me. Probably thinking about influencers or something. Perhaps they saw an ad somewhere and believed I’d see any of that revenue. ;)
I just went with posting the wiki entry about FOSS, and my ko-fi page, and thanked them for their interest. The first two, because they genuinely didn’t know any better, and the third because, well, at least that one is clear. Every user is a tester. Testing is good.
Being polite is better than not being polite, but the way I see it, all user complaints are valid and are better not taken personally if possible. Maybe you as the developer didn’t do anything wrong that contributed to their problem, or are not actually in a position to resolve whatever their problem is, but it’s worth keeping in mind the bigger picture: how well peoples computers work to benefit their lives.
If someone is getting upset that they have to spend time troubleshooting, maybe because they didn’t understand something or made a mistake, there’s definitely other people going through the exact same less-than-ideal experience and not saying anything about it. That’s information about the state of how well things are working and it’s better for it to be out there in some form than not.
Yeah, I didn’t take it personally. He’s just venting, but doing it toward the person trying to help you is unhelpful. That’s why I posted here, basically saying to remember that you’re talking to a person, not a punching bag.
If you look at the number of comments Lemmy says there are, versus the number of comments visible, the difference is how many people from blocked instances there are.
I’ve seen one post where it said there were 51 comments, but none would appear for me. That’s because all of the comments were from instances blocked or defederated by my instance.
I think that the RHEL example is out-of-place, since IBM (“Red Hat”) is clearly exploiting a loophole of the GNU Public License. Similar loopholes have been later addressed by e.g. the AGPL and the GPLv3*, so I expect this one to be addressed too.
So perhaps, if the GPL is “not enough”, the solution might be more GPL.
*note that the license used by the kernel is GPLv2. Cue to Android (for all intents and purposes non-free software) using the kernel, but not the rest.
They’re still providing the code for people who buy the compiled software. And they are not restricting their ability to redistribute that code. So it’s still compliant with the GPL in the letter. However, if you redistribute it, they’ll refuse to service you further versions of the software.
It’s clearly a loophole because they can argue “ackshyually, we didn’t restrict you, we just don’t want further businesses with you, see ya sucker”.
people are always going to be floating ways to save capitalism in the face of communities privileging freedom over greed.
this completely misses the point of free software, and fails to solve the problems Mr. Perens identifies with Open Source. He claims it fails to serve the “common person” (end users) and then proposes a solution that serves… only devs.
Open Source has completely failed to serve the common person. For the most part, if they use us at all they do so through a proprietary software company’s systems, like Apple iOS or Google Android, both of which use Open Source for infrastructure but the apps are mostly proprietary… Indeed, Open Source is used today to surveil and even oppress them.
All these problems are already solved by free software. the rebranding of “open source” was a compromise on the principles of free software to make the movement palatable to profit-seekers. In the end, it predictably failed to improve anything. The solution isn’t to reinvent the wheel, it’s to stop making the wheel square because the square lobby insists they’ll only use it if it’s square. The solution is copyleft, and free software being used more than it’s defanged cousin.
The common person doesn’t know about Open Source, they don’t know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest
That’s a feature, not a bug. On one hand, if people knew about free software they wouldn’t be as good consumers. On the other hand, internals should be opaque to users; just as devs don’t want to have to know how the logic gates in the CPU are routing their code to write code, end users shouldn’t have to worry about the politics of the communities that developed their code.
opensource
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.