" "faith" is offensive " - and how exactly do you think most people act to science ?
Do they check every fact that they learn by experimentation?
Or do they trust/believe authority that given them such fact mindlessly?
Can we stop putting our morality and faith above another's?
Any aggressive ideology that forces it believers to censor non-believer viewpoint is ultimately self-destructive - even if you force non-believers they will not believe in it - because they never trusted it.
"You just cannot promote them to impressionable audiences like children" - the fact that child has device is problem not the fact that device can access information.
"one particular set of contributors' political sensibilities." - the entire western world is now particular sets of political and ideological sensibilities. Why puritan christians always assume that theirs is somehow different of others and won't be subject to new puritanism?
"Read the comments and you'll see their tone is clearly dismissive and condescending" - you think that way because you are biased to classify your religious text as not nsfw - but there is no such reason really - christianity is no longer main ideology of everyone.
To be really fair - semitic politheism had a thing for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch . This can be seen as opposition (a weak one) or whitewashed remnant of endorsement.
I'm not sure that this label works though - I get the F-Droid is doing it because of regulatory push but it seems to me that simply notion of "safe internet" or "safe app-store" is fundamentally misguided (we didn't made TV safe - just gave ranking and let parents decide)- and I can see that someone with modern sensibilities looking at older or god-forbid "ancient" literature will have to mark huge swaths of it as not safe.
I think that most of this rage should instead be directed toward this regulatory nonsense instead of F-droid though.
This does illustrate ironical thing - and what christian puritans forget - bible will not OK for atheistic/modern puritans.
I don't but could you not forget that some people don't have a car.
You can walk or use transit in proper cities.
When I need a bag then it is not a phone it is a laptop without keyboard.
Me who wrote long, long comment and then accidentally pushed close tab shortcut.
!!@@!
I would recommend building some packages containing rust, especially on older hardware - and then realize that because of static linking you will need to rebuild it very very often - and don't forget that you are building clean.
Because it is expected that you will use required shared libraries to make life easier.
I think that rust people should maybe sometimes just consider - that rust if pushed in such way will be more hated than C.
Maybe you should not try to deflect criticism about stable ABI and shared libraries - linux OSes REQUIRE IT - nobody will change OS architecture because you want it.
And maybe we should be more conservative architecturally in especially most critical pieces of software architecture.
It gives rust hate from many people.
And once someone hates language it sticks.
Also add to that the rust zealots who behave like sometimes like political preachers.
"We are future, you are backwards" - says every ideologue.
But conveniently does not say "in direction I want".
When rust started political fight instead of language one they should expect that every rust porting will become political quagmire.
Also you are incorrect - because you are already making wrong assumption:
> crates are not libraries
"never provided a shared library interface" - it doesn't need to, it just need to USE library - distros will convert static one to shared one if that what is reasonable.
Now we have to have C library connected by C headers to (in future) rust application. Sure this somehow works - at cost of memory safety. So someone WILL suggest using rust crate instead of C library, and the problem will inevitably pop up.
You could only say it works correctly as platform stipulates if you did not use any rust crate, or used ones that only your app/lib uses, or trivial finished ones - and I do not see people use rust like that. Even then it is from most linux distributions perspective the distribution job to decide if it should be static or shared linked NOT app-developer.
SSL is something that is prime example of would it best to be written in memory safe language, with safe headers, provided that language makes stable ABI connections, so we can update 0-day not waiting for app developer.
Rust fails spectacularly at last point unless library uses C headers.
But at least it seems that OpenSSL is dynamically loaded after start so they are not changing that too soon.
When I decide to patch some library for my use case I may want to use such library in every instance in every program on the system. Rust crate makes this impossible - now I need to rebuild everything even if I could not reasonably touch ABI boundary in same C code.
Ultimately I think many of linux rust critics see it correctly as company-first/app-centered/containerized/not developement-aware user language (i.e user who can patch software for their specific needs who actively want to inspect every dependency in ONE way), and they prefer the known pro-community/pro-distro/pro-user-developer C/C++ paradigm instead.
(At least fact that many criticism start immediately when GPL project get BSD rust rewrite does point it to free-software/open-source i.e pro-community/pro-company schism)
Many linux users especially developement-aware users just have enough of pip, cargo and every 'modern' stuff - they just want old good apt or pacman.
Then you have people that think slow development and no revolutionary changes should be IT priority in modern times.
Then you have people that do believe that any alternative should be better, easier and simpler than old stuff before it should be treated as even a alternative way.
> Wouldn't it be something if the EU focused on fostering a tech scene rather than attacking it.
> If you don't want Google dominating your populations technology, try creating conditions to grow a replacement.
Talk about fallacy.
It would be better if US started dividing these giants thereby allowing other companies to enter the market.
And before you say something on AI - your companies don't follow your laws either - IP laws - should we remove these? I would advocate that yes, we should - they are nothing more than nuisance (with all the suing costs) in modern times anyway.
We had a tech scene before 2010s - you just can not outcompete these US state-sanctioned companies when they don't follow the law and US cries every time when sane control is applied.
And then there is China to add to that with Temu. Add to that Amazon and fact that there is more than one digital market based in central Europe should be impossible - but they do exist.
And yes we DO have conditions and 'sunlight'.
Look at payment for example:
Google - late 2010s
Apple - middle 2010s
Central European payment systems - 2000s
Some countries reached banking transfer unification - i.e one system to payment transfer with every bank in middle 2010s IN BANKING SYSTEM ITSELF - so as long you have bank account you don't have to have any other transfer system - your bank does it for you - instant.
Yeah so why exactly we have even any competition with Google and Apple?
Ah yeah google pushes it's solution with 'card number' (which if you live in central Europe only time you will use is with US companies) to android.
I still remember culture shock card number gave some people.
When my family member was asked by Netflix to give card number he thought it was fraud - because NO ONE ever did that.
It took enormous amount of persuasion (and call to the bank) that yes - card number is valid system.
He asked me what blocks netflix from slurping all the money if he cannot see the bank website.
He solved problem with (I kid you not) separate banking account where he transferred money before giving that account card number.
And before you have misconception - he was poor but did somewhat (more than most I would say) understand IT - he just did not have trust for his 1000$ pension to not be misused by Netflix employees.
The issue is not that EU cannot make companies - it is that EU companies cannot survive in hostile US market that confuses capitalism with company owned oligarchy.
The thing about EU companies is that they are much more localised - after all they were historically created with country language in mind, not English, some today still don't exist on English web, so you will have trouble to even know about them.
Most of them to this day only work in the same country.
American companies have 380M market + L2 + L3. They rarely limit themselves to country.
EU companies have at best something in range 100M - but realistically if we talk about any other country this falls sharply to ten/s of millions of users.
You already have structural advantage.
US proved that cannot regulate and dismantle its molochs, your choice, but don't come to cry when EU looses patience.
Don't expect that if you try to build & hold monopolies in US because that makes US market "bigger" other countries will not punish you - it's unreasonable.
> When people were coming up with the idea of computer literacy being ubiquitous
If you require everyone to have a computer/phone to live in society for example by digital ID - then is ubiquitous and you must regard it as such.
> This incredibly selfish point of view put forth by a particular sect of _OSS polls sufficiently well at the engineer's only meeting in Palo Alto and nowhere else.
No one forces you to change your OS.
No one forces you to code.
No one forces you to dissemble.
No one forces you to compile.
No one forces you to add or remove certification authority (change the trust).
We only want to force corporations and states to allow Us to do that to device we own.
You are already responsible on code - closed source also GIVES NO WARRANTY.
> sect
the 'sect' as you called it - envisioned world in which when you get device you have driver to it and code to it.
Should manufacturer decide that you will get no new updates - you COULD go to another company and buy updates from them - because you would have ownership of software.
Should your phone manufacturer decide that you will not get no new updates - you COULD go to another company and buy updates from them - because you would have ownership of software.
Should your washing machine manufacturer decide to s-you and force you to connect to cloud via their app - you COULD go to another company and buy software that doesn't force you to do that, and let them install it for you - because you would have ownership of software.
If you want to use smart home - you could without any manufacturer connectivity bs - because you would have ownership of software.
You could decide that you trust company A for OS updates - and if they deceive your trust, change it to B. because you would have ownership of software.
Yes you would need to pay for updates and software - unless software company did sign a real deal with you for your data.
I hate when people say that Free Software is communism - it is not, it is consumer capitalism in purest form.
The whole point wasn't you SHOULD do it yourself - but you CAN do it yourself.
The problem - you need market before any company can enter it.
No libre drivers, no libre firmware - no such company.
And before anyone asks - yes you could extend it to cars.
You would need stricter CA check (here you can make a reasonable exception that self-signed should not work) on that type of device though, but no longer ONLY MANUFACTURER.
Why would you pay another company to do software updates / change when you do buy a repair / parts from third party?
This was intent - not 'increase self-dentistry literacy' - the literacy part came from the users of Linux mostly - you should think about it as after-effect.
> The solution to a bridge collapsing is to increase civil engineering literacy?
If the bridge collapsed because you have no good engineers then yes.
> How much of how many literacies will we be willing to acquire so as to balance the responsibility we ask of every other profession and even those who are low and unskilled?
You are not making good engineers/politicians/doctors etc. if you take ones who want to get paid big money - you are making good ones if the people teach are interested in their work and are willing to get better in it.
To do that you must give them opportunity to grow.
You need casual->small->big->"anti-monopoly split" company path
if you remove casual you don't have a market, you have a graveyard of one.
This is the worst thing that I will read all day, probably for the next month.
So, what I concluded, and I'm just speaking my mind since I have no desire to further engage, is that the FSF intentionally adopted religious mechanisms of growth and cult-like thinking because they couldn't think of any other way to recruit enough software engineers to their cause. Most of the engineers grew disillusioned and left. What remains are the loudest zealots with the least code written. They have the most to gain from shouting their message, hoping to make it seem true so that someone else will write their drivers and desktop software.
> The only reason they would try is because they are being scammed with offers of getting something or cajolement entreating them to allow it.
F-Droid installed German university made QR app. Messaging app that government does not like because it disallows spying on citizens.
> The current status quo serves them and many millions of other people very well
Said you.
So well that only time I had to deal with malware and scam in one was when my parent installed QR App from Google Play and got AD served to them to confirm mobile payment.
REALLY * WELL.
> to them
To you.
> it only represents freedom to be exploited.
There is no reason that verification cannot happen in SSL style - and no layperson will create CA certificate, believe me.
> be very cautious when
Because of that Google decided that it will first introduce it in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand... wait a moment I think I seen that list somewhere...
This was created so governments can censor any application that allow people to communicate. To limit freedom of expression.
You are made into useful idiot.
The fact alone that the 'test subjects' are people living in censorship-like countries should tell you enough.
> Experts in other fields determine the extent
There is exception here - no one determines who can speak - but now Google can do so by revoking application certificate.
> rip that away
You are ripping that away - all of current democratic infrastructure now requires computer communication.
You are removing user's ability to install software, You are giving governments way to censor and spy on citizen on massive scale. You want change. You should be careful not us.
> all the time.
Not all the time - only when there is reasonable ground. You do not provide one - if you think your 'reason' is good then we should ban all communications because someone may send malware in one of links in them.
If you want apple go apple.
> Me? I’m not asking for control.
Yes you do - you asking for control to be given to governments in long run, saying otherwise is disingenuous.
I’m amused by the idea you might know my family better than me, but fun as that is, you don’t.
> If you want apple go apple.
This is the whole point - I do want Apple. I want Apple for my far less capable family members. People in this thread are asking for Apple to be forcibly changed, without understanding that most people are well served by the Apple model.
If you want open, buy open. Make it a viable market. Don’t take away the rails that ordinary people don’t even know are there.
Do they check every fact that they learn by experimentation?
Or do they trust/believe authority that given them such fact mindlessly?
Can we stop putting our morality and faith above another's?
Any aggressive ideology that forces it believers to censor non-believer viewpoint is ultimately self-destructive - even if you force non-believers they will not believe in it - because they never trusted it.