3 ms·

> About choosing phones: I agree, but for newbies the realization may come after the purchase. And the custom ROM experiment may be postponed until the next pur

> About choosing phones: I agree, but for newbies the realization may come after the purchase. And the custom ROM experiment may be postponed until the next purchase... and then forever. Well it means it's not an important factor for those people. 99.99% of the market is served by a device that runs WhatsApp, TikTok, Google Maps, and the local banking app. For most people, "freedom" is the freedom to have the free time to talk to their parents who are half a world away from them; NOT the freedom to mess up their bootloader. I stand by my claim: if you care about these issues, you know what to buy. > My own conclusion: if you want a revolution, an opposition to the closed source (enterprise world) then you show it with a GPL license. I don't want any revolution, I want Free Software to be objectively better - because using bad software just sucks. Free Software should be able to go toe-to-toe with proprietary software, heck even be just better - it has the clear advantage of accumulating volunteer contributions and so on. And yet rather than building a better product that can win with the alternatives by its own merit, we're caught up in bullshit political games. That's exactly the problem with FSF, they're long done actually improving their software, and are just using their position to leverage themselves politically, while making choices that actively hurt their user base. Their technology is stagnating and becoming more and more irrelevant as alternatives are catching up or surpassing them (clang/llvm), most remaining value is in broad (in)compatibility (glibc, bash, coreutils), which hurts other FS projects too (*BSD, Alpine). I've been using Emacs for 20 years and feel more and more trapped with it - no other editor/IDE comes close, despite FSF's efforts to undermine the project. As a potential contributor, I'm scared away by their practices of turning down improvements on political grounds. As a user, I feel trapped in their staged shitshow. You know the tree by its fruit.

PinkSheep 4y ago
> As a potential contributor, I'm scared away by their practices of turning down improvements on political grounds. As a potential contributor I suggest you to be present on their mailing list (filter for OSX and other keywords if you wish) to have a voice when needed. > Their technology is stagnating and becoming more and more irrelevant as alternatives are catching up or surpassing them (clang/llvm) I would say clang+LLVM is a poor example, because for C/C++ they're directly comparable in final performance (state of the art). The Clang suite is newer and I'd argue benefits from this and the lack of legacy. Then Apple has it as their compiler of choice and this entails a lot of dedicated work force. Instead I'd say GNU/FSF have stagnated in their methods of collaboration. I've looked at their GCC website. It probably looked not too different in 1999. That's not a bad thing but mailing lists... I understand the love for e-mail but not the mailing lists. I think if the wonder called Rust didn't embrace the new ways of thinking, communication and tooling, it would not have developed into what it is today and as fast as it has. Finally GNU/FSF may have served their purpose. They spawned the idea of radically free and open source software. A decade later (1990s-2000s) the thousands of neat programs were being made for Win32 and very few developers chose to open source their creations even when the software was perpetually free. "I dont want others to see my code" sometimes out of fear of being judged, remember those arguments? Think of the developer effort wasted in discontinued programs that are no longer available/working and either have no successors or their successors had to be remade from scratch. Thankfully nowadays the mentality has changed and it's rare to see a free/shareware program that still remains closed to the public.

PinkSheep 4y ago

> As a potential contributor, I'm scared away by their practices of turning down improvements on political grounds. As a potential contributor I suggest you to be present on their mailing list (filter for OSX and other keywords if you wish) to have a voice when needed. > Their technology is stagnating and becoming more and more irrelevant as alternatives are catching up or surpassing them (clang/llvm) I would say clang+LLVM is a poor example, because for C/C++ they're directly comparable in final performance (state of the art). The Clang suite is newer and I'd argue benefits from this and the lack of legacy. Then Apple has it as their compiler of choice and this entails a lot of dedicated work force. Instead I'd say GNU/FSF have stagnated in their methods of collaboration. I've looked at their GCC website. It probably looked not too different in 1999. That's not a bad thing but mailing lists... I understand the love for e-mail but not the mailing lists. I think if the wonder called Rust didn't embrace the new ways of thinking, communication and tooling, it would not have developed into what it is today and as fast as it has. Finally GNU/FSF may have served their purpose. They spawned the idea of radically free and open source software. A decade later (1990s-2000s) the thousands of neat programs were being made for Win32 and very few developers chose to open source their creations even when the software was perpetually free. "I dont want others to see my code" sometimes out of fear of being judged, remember those arguments? Think of the developer effort wasted in discontinued programs that are no longer available/working and either have no successors or their successors had to be remade from scratch. Thankfully nowadays the mentality has changed and it's rare to see a free/shareware program that still remains closed to the public.