West Asia - Communist - international politics - anti-imperialism - software development - Math, science, chemistry, history, sociology, and a lot more.

  • 27 Posts
  • 68 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 27th, 2021

help-circle



  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlMtoLinux@lemmy.ml•I changed my license
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You’re using “open source” as defined by OSI. Just wanted to note that open source historically arose in protest to the corporate walled gardens that dominated the software ecosystem, rather than a movement to give companies a large eco-system of free-to-use software for profit. It was about individuals having access.

    But I am not going to argue that what I am proposing is open source. I will accept that open source as a term has already been coopted to serve corporations.

    forces you to share the code, even when it is not deployed

    It would only apply to for-profit entities. It would be extremely difficult to enforce on an individual level anyways, and it would disagree with the spirit here.

    forces you to pay a tithe to the developer.

    I called that profit sharing earlier, but you can call it that too, sure.


  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlMtoLinux@lemmy.ml•I changed my license
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    isn’t that similar to gpl?

    That is correct. GPL has the same problem.

    why should the company’s profit go to a developer they don’t employ?

    I dont agree with the idea that paying non-employees is a foreign concept. Many companies pay, for example, Adobe for Adobe suite software, or Google for Google suite software, despite not hiring them as employees. They pay rent to property owners despite not hiring them as employees. The idea that only employees must be paid is unfounded.

    Now, to answer “why should they pay them”, well, in exchange for their labor.


  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlMtoLinux@lemmy.ml•I changed my license
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Not good enough. Companies are still allowed to use this software freely, make massive profits without anything going to the developer. It is truly free labor.

    They are even allowed to modify it, even make derivative work, without open sourcing it, as long as they don’t distribute said derivative work.








  • Arch works well for gaming. However, depending on what you’re doing, you should keep this in mind:

    • on any distro, updates may break things or change the behavior of apps. The difference in arch is that youll update no less than weekly on average, maybe biweekly at worst. This would matter more if you have a complex setup. If you’re just using steam, I wouldn’t worry
    • arch only uses the latest versions of software. If you ever install something from outside the arch repos, you have to make sure it is compatible with recent versions. Sometimes it may not be.





  • To summarize: the major difference is that Arch Linux gives you the latest versions of all programs and packages. You can update anytime, and you’ll get the latest versions every time for all programs

    Debian follows a stable release model. Suppose you install debian 12 (bookworm). The software versions there are locked, and they’re usually not the latest versions. For example, the Linux kernel there is version 6.1, whereas the latest is like 6,9 or something. Neovim is version 0.7, whereas the latest is 0.9. Those versions will remain this way, unless you update to, say, debian 13 whenever it comes out. But if you do your regular system updates, it will only do security updates (which do not change the behavior of a program).

    You might wonder, why is the debian approach good? Stability. Software updates = changes. Changes could mean your setup that was previously working, suddenly isn’t, because now the program changed behavior. Debian tries to avoid that by locking all versions, and making sure they are fully compatible. It also ensures that by doing this, you don’t miss out on security updates.






  • Why would one be discouraged by the fact that people have options and opinions on them? That’s the part I’m not buying. I don’t disagree that people do in fact disagree and argue. I don’t know if I’d call it fighting. People being unreasonably aggressive about it are rare.

    I for one am glad that people argue. It helps me explore different options without going through the effort of trying every single one myself.