:bootlicker:

Considering most proprietary software companies are moving to web technologies, I call bs on your take, sounds like you’re still mentally stuck in 2015.

Universal Blue might be what you’re looking for. It’s a Fedora-based distribution based on ostree (same stuff for Silverblue/Kinoite). It has the leading edge system components of Fedora with the reliability of flatpak and ostree updates. I truly consider ostree to be the future of the Linux desktop.

POP!_OS does not use archaic packages for system components. It ships with the latest stable kernel, mesa and pipewire (and Steam + Nvidia)

The distribution is just on a feature hiatus until the summer when COSMIC is realeased.

I don’t really buy that considering how passionate people are about that game. Just because it’s now free software doesn’t mean you have to accept contributions.

A copyleft license would prevent copycats and a trademark would distinguish the original from other compiled binaries a la Firefox or Rust.

Counterpoint, Thunderbird received millions in donations when it was on the brink of death.

At least when he retires it will finally be available that’s better than most games (esp. those built on nonfree game engines and assets)

What a fragile person, literally makes a lightist jab at a known enemy of free software and now you’re pissing and shitting yourself.

But no, your billion dollar corporation needs defending from you. Get real.

The Network Effect described the the GNU Project is when individuals will submit themselves to nonfree and DRM’d software simply in order to socially connect with others. Messaging apps are the textbook example, but video games are as well.

Of course the defense is always a form of apathy or some call to apathy like stating that more people indulge in the activity than those who actively abstain. Of course there is an implicit shaming tactic of those who preserve their freedom, calling them the “frigid minority” or the “isolated zealots”

Shame on you for being so closed minded. The spread of DRM is never okay under any scenario, just because you have some perceived FOMO. There are thousands of multiplayer games out there that don’t have DRM rootkits, why not try to play those with your friends instead?

What??? It’s literally just a group distinguishing itself from another. Both Open Source and Free Software work together against a common enemy.

It’s good to distinguish different groups that have different methodologies, motives and goals to avoid friction. This essay is actively trying to avoid hostility.

you get to tell anyone who uses your product what they can do with it.

Horseshoe theory but for copyleft and copyright. What a fucking joke. I thought you had good intentions but now I know you’re unwilling to see another perspective.

Whatever you say, at least I’m not the one advocating for people to install spyware from any Tom, Dick and Harry that claims it will “fix cheating”

The other solution is to simply not play those games. It’s bad enough that the game itself is nonfree, but if it has DRM/relies on a nonfree network service then it should be ostracized.

But those things require having a spine, so I doubt you’d like them.

Or you could just stop playing these predatory games? Literally condemn them and move on.

I don’t think its nice to be constantly treated like an inferior by corporate suits who see you as a pig to be exploited for cash.

Yeah no thanks I don’t think companies should hand out rootkits to unsuspecting users.

Of course this is capitalist laziness that will envelop the entire proprietary games industry, the only way to kick out cheaters is better net code and actually scaled moderation, but those things cost money and maintnence (as well as dedicated playerbase).

To think otherwise is to boot lick these multi-million dollar corporations.

We in the free software movement don’t think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.

Your own citation disproves the hostility claim. To answer your question, yes I was a student associate member of the FSF. Nowhere did I learn to treat non copyleft licenses as “hostile.” In fact, they are so prevalent that considering it hostile/harmful would be fruitless. They are still free licenses at the end of the day (at least the ones that dont violate the four freedoms)

Edit: actually we are hostile to some open source licenses, like the ones that prohibit commercial use to any group or individual! That’s a huge no-no.

Surprised that most hardware companies aren’t on the list. AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Apple, Broadcom all are hostile to reverse engineering or in Nvidias case, not even bothering to do the bare minimum for an ultra lenient Torvalds.

FSF defines anything that’s not copyleft as hostile. That’s most companies. I personally don’t think I can tell my users what to do with my software other than remove my liability so I vehemently disagree with Stallman.

Citations please? Using a pushover license instead of copyleft is not hostility but a missed opportunity. Copyleft is about a community safeguarding itself and making sure the software can’t be used in proprietary applications as much as possible.

Nice excuse for your own laziness and immaturity. My advice is to stop learning other languages if you can’t handle the tiniest of opinions. Part of language learning is cultural humility, you’re just a culture pig who needs their feelings coddled.

You have a bad and selfish attitude.

Taiwan will be red, either by accepting the CPC and reunifying or by allowing themselves to be a proxy for Washington’s war with communism and declaring their meaningless independence.

Keep telling yourself that as the US slowly crumbles and destroys itself to satisfy the whims of a few capitalists at the top.

The East is still Red and the West is doing high octane copium.

Fedora KDE, if you want extra packages you can check RPMFusion, copr, Nix/Guix and Flatpak.

Arch (and also EndeavourOS) expect the user to be able to troubleshoot and solve problems themselves and also customize things as they want. You have the highest amount of freedom, but also the most responsibility.

Common China W. Americans literally dying as a nation day by day while China becomes the guardian of the world. Century of humiliation.

Guess the capitalism didn’t pay off?

A lotta words to describe what’s inevitable under a capitalist model of software creation and distribution and an ideology that limits itself inherently.

It seems like Perens is discovering what RMS already predicted a long time ago (ironic considering he quotes him), that Open Source will fail its users in terms of freedom (i am not speaking about Open Source as a development model but a political movement and collective who use the term to define itself).

The Open Source community has shown itself to be unreliable in defending our freedom. The lax attitude toward nonfree tooling like Github and copyleft licenses has shown itself to create issues like the ones mentioned by Perens. It’s a bad look when hackers are forced to use nonfree software to participate in open source development when libre solutions either exist already or can be spearheaded by these same hackers (source hut comes to mind).

The GPL enforces itself and hunting companies that violate the GPL was never the goal (when they are sued by the FSF, it is only so that they publish the source code by the license terms). The purpose of the GPL was to create a community of hackers to build software under a protected copyleft domain. These problems that perens mentioned are applicable to the pushover MIT/X11 license which unfortunately has lured hackers into believing that the current capitalist tech field would respect them (EEE and enshittification debunk this). Pushover licenses were a specific strategy for certain pieces of software (miniscule libraries, open file formats to replace closed/patented ones) but have been overused to the point of meaningless.

TL;DR a movement that appeals to capitalist corporate interests rather than emphasizing freedom on ethical/civil grounds will be limited by that same system.

The goal of the hacktivist struggle was always to create software that protects the users freedom as nonfree software is inherently unjust. With enough free software we can kick out the dirty contracts, patents, and licenses used to control us.

Of course those who identifty with Open Source can have their own set of strategies and beliefs, but the dominant culture and attitude are accurate to what I mentioned above. Open Source has always been a sister movement to the Free Software Movement in terms of ideology. It’s why FOSS is such a controversial term, it would be unfair to awkwardly (FOSS only excacerbates the confusion about “Free”) group these two communties together who differ in many key ways.