Comments by "Winnetou17" (@Winnetou17) on "Brodie Robertson"
channel.
-
130
-
108
-
I think that Apple gets less hate because they're a more "opt-in" ecosystem / playground. That is, the default is windows, when you have no choice or don't know what to pick. So you'll use it and, in many cases, find things that irk you and some that you'll absolutely hate. But going to an Apple... you usually reasearch it a bit, before you choose to buy one. That is, you already have some idea if you'd like it or not and there's good chances that you'll simply not switch to it if there's possibility of incompatibility, so to speak. Getting back to Windows being the default option - you rarely are forced to use Apple, for, say, work.
So bottom line of the above, when going Apple you usually know what you're getting into, significantly reducing the number of people frustrating with using it. As some simply choose to not go Apple, they might've realized beforehand that what they're doing is simply incompatible (like most gaming). And the rest might've had done some research and learned how to do the basic things.
Me personally, I do hate Apple more than Microsoft. I do not deny that their engineers and designers are usually doing a very good job. Most people I know using Apple's products are happy, things work. Well, the thing they're using it for. But Apple is so focused on control and walling the garden as much as possible, so anti consumer, that I do not care how good their products are.
Microsoft, to be fair, is not that far off. But, I guess, because their current position, they have a much bigger garden, so closing it is much much harder. But their strides for requiring an online Microsoft account, and what they're doing to secure login and I forgot the next thing after secure login, that's also a no-no. I've used Windows since Windows 95 (used a bit 3.11 too, but it was on old computers in some places) to Windows 10, and I've been a happy Windows 10 user. I know I won't drive Windows 11, not by personal choice. I might have to, for work, but unless I REALLY have to for something specific, I won't install it on any of my personal systems. Even if their bullshit if bypassable.
79
-
I stand with Drew here. He might've been nagging and snarky a bit, but was in the right. And the later responses from Go's side were quite lacking, I'd say much more impolite that Drew ever was in those threads.
First, like Brodie said, they initially said they can do a temporary solution, and that they're working on a solution or at least some improvements. Later, with no further notice, they act like the temporary solution is the well-established-and-acknowledged one, with no more information on the improvement/solution.
Second, the responses like "because of boring details, we don't want to do this" (paraphrase). But it's exactly the place and time to actually post those admitedly boring details since at least those who are impacted can understand why it takes so long or why it's not practical to be done, and the people that are in those threads can understand a lot on the subject. Not to mention that it would've also shed some light into the prioritisation, if it's something that is hard to do, it can be understood that there are more important things to do first. But no, they treated those impacted like kids who want too much, and whose pains are not important.
Sigh
Edit: I forgot to add. When you have 3 requests from the same IP in the same second... I find it hard to believe that something can't be done about it, with reasonable effort. Example: 5:18
67
-
40
-
Ok, here's a hot take: I fully disagree with Drew. Well, most of his points are actually ok, and I agree with some (like decoupling GNU and FSF and the need for new licences). But I said fully disagree because I totally do not agree with the method of achieving said reforms.
There is this case that FSF is kind of tone deaf, that is extreme in its philosophy. I do think that is good. That is should stay that way (off topic and that Richard Stallman should stay in FSF, including leading it). Why (to answer Brodie's question in the end) ? Because it is objectively pure. It is a golden standard. When FSF endorses something, so far you can be sure that it actually, absolutely is free software, no "practical considerations", no "in a manner of speaking" no "for all intents and purposes" and so on. That is very valuable.
If someone like Drew likes to improve the situation and cannot do so with/within FSF for reasons like FSF being very rigid, I don't understand this need to change FSF, when it has a clear stated goal and philosophy. He should begin another foundation and achieve those things like that. A milder FSF, more in tone with the masses I'm sure would attract a lot of people that are in the sentiment of FSF, but are not willing to go to the lengths that Richard Stallman go (and why I have huge respect for him). This doesn't have to be at the expense of the current FSF, it should be alongside.
Also, I cannot agree with that 5-year-old mentality that if red people are known to be good with something, then to have blue people good with that, we should put blue people in charge. That's downright insulting for anybody with 3-digit IQ. If the blue people want to weave, then they should start learning. And only deal with the cases when they are not allowed to learn, that's the only thing that should be done. Equality of chances, not equality of outcome. Leadership should be on merit. Assuming that blue people need to be put in charge automatically assumes that both red and blue people are tribalist cavemen-level people who cannot be impartial and cannot see value in the people of other color. How can I take this man seriously when he's so gigantically wrong about such a simple issue ?
Also, that "we're told that unfree Javascript" is stupid and cringe, I have to agree. That should be improved. By FSF.
24
-
22
-
In regards to "not forking Chromium" vs "use OS-based rendering". My take on this, is that they simply use whatever rendering engine is installed.
The rendering engine (webkit, for example) will be used by the browser like "hey, here's the HTML + CSS, give me pixels to show on the screen". Inherently, it cannot mess with privacy, since it cannot know where that HTML+CSS comes from, it has no access to things like cookies, it doesn't know and cannot connect to anything external and so on. I'm not so sure on the Javascript side, but I'm pretty sure that JS will be run separately, or containerized somehow.
So, the browser, whatever DuckDuckGo are working on, will manage things like connecting to the server, fetching the files (what you can do with cURL), managing cookies and local storage, and so on, and on this level you have privacy concerns.
So that's why I think they're going for this approach. No need to fork and maintain the rendering engine, they'll use whatever is available, since it cannot interfere with the privacy. And using it as an external program is different than forking it, even though it's, I guess, more on the nuance level.
20
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
I think the FSF attitude is EXACTLY what is needed and what they should do. No cracks in the armor as you say. It protects us from getting complacent and "slowly boiled". It protects against slippery slopes. It defines the golden standard and is very nice to see people catering to that, despite the immense hurdles in doing so.
It really saddens me the stance of many people who think FSF as irrelevant or extremists just because they actually stand by their stance and don't compromise on their ethics. They are important to see what the golden standard is. It's up to you how much of it you want. In practicality, for now, going 100% is very limiting. But that's the good thing, we know, we are aware of that! If you want to go full privacy and full freedom, you know what to do, you know how to get there, you know what you have to ditch. And I haven't heard of an FSF endorsed software to be actually non-free in any regard, so they are doing a good job there, as far as I know.
It also REALLY saddens me that some people think that endorsing FSF somehow needs that you yourself, on all your computers, have to run 100% free software and then they see the impracticality of it (like Richard Stallman going without a cellphone and running 15 year old laptops) and promptly reject the idea in its entirety. When it's actually should be used a sign that more work has to be done to get free software to be a decent alternative. You can run and use whatever you want, just try to help the idea (mind-share, testing, documentation and, of course, programming & others) to move it into a better place.
Its akin to someone seeing a poor, weak person, which is poor and weak of no fault of its own, and being disgusted by it and running away from it. That's not the right attitudine, that person should be helped. Same with free software, it should be helped so it grows into a decent alternative.
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
@BrodieRobertson I get the "historic" ? part of "tiling" = tiling manager, but I don't think it should be a be-all end-all argument. Like Nicco said, while it's barebones, so to speak, or lacking, it's still tiling. Calling it like that it's the most descriptive way. I don't think a new term should be invented for this, I think the "in Linux, tiling means X" people should adjust. That's what makes the most sense to me, and what makes sense for the future (where, to a new guy, all these terms should make sense). Eventually we can maybe call this "manual tiling", versus "automatic tiling" and make sure to simply not use just "tiling".
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
"Free to play games are complete exploitative garbage" I don't know, I wouldn't call NetHack that...
Jokes aside, yeah, all free things need to have a method to pay, a method to support. While I'm young I'm not able to contribute. Or those in poor countries. Now that I'm mid aged, have some disposable income and that I understand that things needs funds in order to have them stay nice, I can donate. Not to all of them, sadly, but, still, it can get sustainable in most situations.
8
-
While I get the frustration, and that it certainly can be better, the communication, that is. But I also have to point out that it's good that very specific examples arise with Wayland's developers refusing to simply implement something on a simple request. It's like a high barrier of entry (frustratingly so at times) that does, in its way, allow for proper thought on how it should be standardised and implemented. And with the requirements made clear, it's also kind of documenting why X or Y is like it is. And why it exists.
So I kind of support their way of asking about the problem, until Every Single Detail is laid out. It does help with building the proper future, so to speak. The "trust the users", even the those users are hand selected to be trustworthy, that does not fly with me. They can be very thoughtful and well-motivated, but going into ALL the details upfront allows for improvements. After all, Wayland is not about simply recreating X, but something better, that's good, efficient and maintainable. For that you need to know exactly what's needed, exclude what's not needed, and have good documentation.
In the end, they're the ones which give their sign of approval, so it only makes sense that they ask all the details upfront. And the devil is in the details, never underestimate the ability of a small detail to ruin everything.
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Call me pedantic, but I think it would be best to have a fork with the current way of small, required proprietary blobs included, just to be called something else, like Chadboot. And have Libreboot be.... you know... libre? Without any asterisks. Fully, 100% free, like it was before nov 2022. And to have them easy to recognize what they do like "oh, Libreboot is just Chadboot without any proprietary code". It's basically like it is now already, but under two different names, for different purposes and less confusion.
Otherwise, I'm happy that both a) they added the proprietary stuff to make it usable on much more systems and b) that they still give you the option of having 100% free software.
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
@sammiller6631 Wrong. This direction that we're talking about is something objective. When they say that something is free software, it means that the code for the software is available, no binaries. That's not faith, it's not zealotry, is the objective truth.
Now, you can say that they are inqusition-level zealous, because they don't compromise. Like, say, for practicality. If the only full free software laptop is one from 17 years ago, then so be it. I like and respect that.
Because (here's the big thing) I can always choose how much poison I take. That is, if I go full free software or only partially and how much. And this differs from person to person, everybody has a different tolerance and needs, so what's practically free software might be too compromised and unsafe for others and viceversa.
That's why having FSF tied to objectively full free software is very valuable, even if it's impractical (for now). I also value that is shows us how far we are from that ideal standard. Even when that distance is sooo big and they're actually getting blamed for it.
5