Norah - She/They

Wait the Leaderboard is local only xD

Video games have spoiled me.

Oh I see, you published this OP?

Yo, what? Wasn’t expecting to top the leaderboard my first playthru…

It’s not a text editor in it’s own right, you can use it with nano. It’s simply a tool to help create and format journal entries. I’d assume you can set a directory they’re stored in, and then use the command from anywhere, but didn’t dig into the documentation just yet. It can also handle encrypting those entries if you choose.

I dunno, maybe just let people have nice things? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I believe it does crash the system eventually as important buts start to go missing?

The Reminders app is also the stock app that handles syncing reminders with all your signed-in accounts. Most things include them as part of calendar syncing :)

It also seems straight up dangerous, for themselves and others, at least on downhill trails. If they’re going down them, well, it’s already dangerous enough for beginners (who always seem to ignore the difficulty ratings) without adding extra speed. But the issue I’ve seen time and again is folks riding those things up the trails that people are actively trying to ride down. They were never designed with two-way traffic in mind, and going up it just chews it up even more.

What do you think this platform is for other than having discussions, which naturally lead to differing opinions. Why are you being a jerk? You said:

> You don’t need a $5000 pro camera to get started, but at leat something better than a simple point and shoot would be preferable to start. Like a decent prosumer DSLR.

I agreed with the first part, a P&S isn’t great. I disagreed with the second point, as a DSLR is already on the high end. There’s a happy medium. You then tried to tell me I was confused? About what? I don’t consider it an entry-level suggestion?

Chill out mate.

I’m not confused, and you didn’t suggest either of those in your comment. My point is that you are the cause of the problem in the OP. People already in the hobby suggesting you need x to do photography, when x is significantly more expensive than y which is a more appropriately priced entry with similar features. DSLR bodies are about twice the price of an MFT body with similar specs. I’ve never used a P&S without manual mode either. Just let people enjoy hobbies, not everyone earns a wage that’s enough to drop a couple of thousand just to have fun.

MFT and APS-C both have full manual modes. But okay, I guess just fulfil the meme? A DSLR is overkill for almost all beginners, and this sort of advice pushes people out of hobbies they might enjoy.

You really don’t need to start out with a DSLR either though. A Micro Four Thirds body is plenty decent for a beginner, and these days the range of lenses is great.

Yeah honestly these feelings are so bloody valid after the way they’ve been used lately. It’s always good to be sure of these things.

Would you not consider signing a CLA (without remuneration) if it binds a project to releasing your code under an OSI license? The only way they could have done better I think is by specifying AGPL instead. I’m not trying to argue that all CLAs are good here, but I don’t think that when they achieve the goals of the free software movement, they should be treated with suspicion or derision.

Honestly, all of the recent light shone on CLAs is a great thing. But there are still valid reasons to maintain a unified copyright for a project. None of these projects would have been able to move to AGPL without having used a CLA for that purpose. It also allows enforcement of that license via things like litigation, because you can have one entity on the docket, instead of a thousand contributors all defending their copyright.

I think the correct course of action isn’t to avoid signing one, but to force projects to commit to the social contract of open source in writing. I think there’s also a discussion that no one has earnestly talked about. A contributor license agreement is a contract between two parties, and under contract laws both parties must materially benefit. “I will get x, and you will get y”. This is known as consideration, and courts will nullify contracts that only benefit one of the parties. The only consideration I think there is to be found in most of the CLAs that have been brought up lately, is basically “your code will be merged into the project and released under it”. They don’t specify the continuation of open source, but it’s heavily implied by the aforementioned social contract. So when someone like RHEL goes and closes their source, they’ve essentially changed that contract to “you will sign over your copyright to us, and we will exploit your labour for profit”. That is not consideration, and it calls into question the validity of every single CLA signed. I genuinely think there’s grounds for every RHEL contributor that signed one to form a class and sue, and I would love to see FSF or EFF organising and supporting that sort of effort.

Back to Element for a second though, as far as I can see, their new CLA is a valid contract, because it gives a right to the contributor, that their code will always be released under an OSI license. So if a successful suit was brought against someone like RHEL, or Hashicorp, we could see other projects scramble to repeat Element here. That would be, in my opinion, a very good thing for the free software movement.

Except both of the projects you just linked too have CLAs, which they updated on switching to AGPLv3. Both use them as a way to offer dual-licensing, so they can charge companies for an AGPL-exception by selling them a proprietary-licensed version, which then supports the FOSS-development. They both were also only able to change to AGPL because of already existing CLAs. At least in Element’s case though, they created a two-way commitment in their CLA:

Now, CLAs come in all shapes and sizes: some good and some bad. It’s critical to understand that our reason for requiring one here is to give us the right to sell AGPL exceptions: not to “do a Hashicorp” and switch to a non-FOSS licence in future. We’ve made this clear in the wording of the CLA (using a similar approach to Signal’s CLA) by committing to distributing contributions as FOSS under an OSI-approved licence – many thanks to those who gave feedback on the original announcement to suggest this. You can find the final CLA wording here, derived from the well-respected Apache Software Foundation CLA.

Here’s the specific text from the CLA:

Element shall be entitled to make Your Contribution available under Element’s proprietary software licence, provided that Element shall also make Your Contribution available under the terms of an OSl-approved open-source license.

I personally consider that a fairly reasonable term. Especially because they specified an OSI-approved license. Element are always going to be bound to that now. This is like the copyleft of contributor license agreements.

Oh cool, gonna install this in my Windows 10 VM under Linux :)

try 3d anything

blender runs natively on linux…

do agree about music tho, it’s still a huge area that needs work

edit: blender running on my legion go, under steam gamemode on bazzite (it’s available on steam):

Not trying to convince you, you have your reasons. However, Photoshop 2024 runs just fine under wine: https://forum.mattkc.com/viewtopic.php?t=336

I believe illustrator and premiere do as well. There’s also always running Windows in a VM. There are ways to have the Windows applications show within the Linux DE. It just might be worth experimenting with a dual boot if it’s something you want.

I’m sorry, did you just retroactively change the meaning of FOSS to “thoughts and feelings” so you could throw Apple under the bus?

That information is well over a decade out of date. I remember when VLC had those issues. In a rare capitulation for Apple, they adjusted their terms to allow copyleft licenses.

As far as “probably” causing FOSS devs to stay away from the platform. Like I said, most FOSS projects have an iOS app. Hell, Jellyfin now has several FOSS iOS apps. Most of the iOS Lemmy apps that are available are FOSS, heck some of those are even iOS-only.

Like, I’m sorry, but this is about facts and not just your feelings. You said before that the choice of Swift over Rust would “massively” affect FOSS contributions while providing zero evidence to back that up. Sure, you’re right, number of files doesn’t mean much, but at least I provided a fact.

My personal opinion is that most FOSS developers are put off by “yet another chromium fork”, and will flock to this project as a breath of fresh air, no matter whether it’s Swift or Rust.

Yeah, I don’t exactly think it’s particularly burdensome to have to rename your fork so that people don’t confuse it with the software you forked from. Without this restriction, FOSS projects would have absolutely zero recourse against bad actors. A non-FOSS competitor could just waltz in, fork their code and turn it into absolute hot garbage, convincing enough people that it’s the original project to make it all worth their while.