Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   LibreOffice (libreoffice@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 18:05:48 JST LibreOffice

   Question! Why should local governments use taxpayers’ money to buy proprietary, closed software from a single vendor? And what happens to citizens' data? A solution is to move to free and open source software like #Linux and #LibreOffice – which is exactly what Schleswig-Holstein is doing: https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2024/04/04/german-state-moving-30000-pcs-to-libreoffice/ #foss #OpenSource #privacy

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 18:08:41 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @libreoffice >free and open source software like #Linux
     Unfortunately, the kernel, Linux is proprietary software.
     
     If you want a free version of Linux, I recommend; https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/selibre/linux-libre/
   • Embed this notice
     LibreOffice (libreoffice@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 19:45:50 JST LibreOffice

     in reply to

     • Zeki Çatav 🤔 ☕ 🕯️🎶

     @catavz A long, long time ago – a lot has changed since then. And many would argue that it didn't succeed for political reasons, rather than technical: https://itsfoss.com/munich-linux-failure/

   • Embed this notice
     Zeki Çatav 🤔 ☕ 🕯️🎶 (catavz@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 19:45:51 JST Zeki Çatav 🤔 ☕ 🕯️🎶

     in reply to

     @libreoffice Hadn't this been tried twice in Munich?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 20:10:10 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Gssy
     @wall0159 Ding ding ding winner of most confusing and incorrect statements in a sentence for the year so far.
     
     >the Linux kernel
     Linux is only a kernel and referring to it using that naming convention continues the current massive confusion.
     
     Most OS's are developed with the kernel tightly coupled with the rest of the system of software that allows you to operate the computer, so the kernel doesn't typically end up with a name.
     
     As a result, when it comes to referring to unnamed kernels, typically people say; the <OS name> kernel, for example; "the NT kernel" or "the OpenBSD kernel".
     
     What's different about GNU/Linux is that GNU was developed first and then an additional kernel (Linux) was developed for it separately, but of course people have taken to referring to GNU as "Linux" and so for some reason people further the confusion by adopting a confusing naming scheme when referring to Linux as Linux.
     
     There's also systemd/Linux, BusyBox/Linux and Android, with vast differences, with the only similarity being the kernel in use, which is why one should give Linux to Linus and GNU to GNU.
     
     >it is licensed under the GPL
     There are many licenses in the GPL family not just one.
     
     What Linux developers actually claim that some parts are under GPLv2-only, some GPLv2-or-later and some under difference licenses (mind you, they'll only admit that some parts are under proprietary licenses despite the GPLv2 incompatibility if you make them).
     
     I checked the Linux "sources" myself and found many cases of proprietary software disguised as arrays of numbers without source code, with the wrong license (a GPLv2 SPDX header is a lie if there's no source code nor offer for source).
     
     >open source licence
     The GPLv2 is a free software license - no license in the GPL family has "open" in it;
     "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users."; https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
   • Embed this notice
     Gssy (wall0159@aus.social)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 20:10:11 JST Gssy

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki the Linux kernel is not proprietary, it is licensed under the GPL open source licence @libreoffice

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 21:08:29 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Phosphenes
     @Phosphenes >Linux's most famous attribute is that it is open source and free.
     Yes, Linux is a poster child for "open source", when it isn't even completely source-available.
     
     Ironic isn't it?
     
     The GNU version - GNU Linux-libre is 100% free software mind you.
     
     
     Unfortunately, a proprietary rat is not a cat.
   • Embed this notice
     Phosphenes (phosphenes@glasgow.social)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 21:08:30 JST Phosphenes

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Gssy

     @wall0159 @Suiseiseki

     Yeah WTF! Linux's most famous attribute is that it is open source and free.
     'Unfortunately, lions are not cats.' 🤔

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 21:13:28 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Phosphenes
     @Phosphenes Yes, the windshield wipers are electrified, but if the windshield wipers are controlled by software and that software is proprietary, then your 1997 Ford diesel runs proprietary software.
   • Embed this notice
     Phosphenes (phosphenes@glasgow.social)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 21:13:29 JST Phosphenes

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki

     My 1997 Ford diesel has electric windshield wipers therefore it is an EV?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 21:42:13 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Phosphenes
     @Phosphenes >First you said Linux is proprietary then you linked to a Linux that is non-proprietary.
     Yes, the Linux from kernel.org is proprietary, but GNU Linux-libre isn't.
     
     >That's like saying 'Birds are blue' then pointing to a bunch of red birds.
     More accurately I said saying that proprietary birds aren't blue and pointed to free blue birds (with proprietary red dye washed out) and then proprietary red birds.
     
     >I mean, just provide some proof that the kernel is proprietary.
     You seek and you shall receive:
     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/powerpc/platforms/8xx/micropatch.c
     
     That is software (MIPS instructions if I remember cpu-rec output correctly), without source code, nor an offer for source (looking at the git history, SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 was slapped on by a script and isn't the license).
     
     There's plenty more if you insist - I can go find my documentation as to all the proprietary software that I found.
     
     >It might be more accurate to say 'some modules in some kernels are not free'.
     Yes, so people have committed copyright infringement by writing proprietary Linux modules and distributing those, but thankfully that's becoming less common.
   • Embed this notice
     Phosphenes (phosphenes@glasgow.social)'s status on Thursday, 04-Apr-2024 21:42:14 JST Phosphenes

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki

     I mean, just provide some proof that the kernel is proprietary.

     First you said the Linux kernel is proprietary then you linked to a Linux kernel that is non-proprietary. That's like saying 'Birds are blue' then pointing to a bunch of red birds.

     It might be more accurate to say 'some modules in some kernels are not free'.

   • Embed this notice
     Cloud68.co 👩‍💻👨‍💻 (cloud68@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 05-Apr-2024 00:22:36 JST Cloud68.co 👩‍💻👨‍💻

     in reply to

     @libreoffice excited every time we hear about this kind of news. Also, yeah tax funded infrastructure should be spent for free libre open source software.

   • Embed this notice
     Number6 :syncthing: (number6@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 05-Apr-2024 01:48:09 JST Number6 :syncthing:

     in reply to

     @libreoffice

     Not that I would defend M$, but the cost of the operating system and the software is a fraction of the cost of the machines it runs and and the personnel that use it.

     Retraining thousands of employees to use Open source products might be more expensive than the cost of the operating system & software.

     Then there's the problem that almost always there will be essential software that only runs on MS desktops.

     And then there's hardware compatibility issues.

   • Embed this notice
     Moritz Mühlenhoff (jmm@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 05-Apr-2024 06:39:16 JST Moritz Mühlenhoff

     in reply to

     @libreoffice Is it known what are planning to deploy? One of the supported enterprise versions mentioned at https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-in-business/ or the standard releases commonly found in Linux distros?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 05-Apr-2024 10:48:11 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • AndyScott
     @AndyScott >Personally, I'll be blocking this person.
     Ah yes, someone who can't handle the truth and claims that I'm trolling and using fallacies to cope.
     
     >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
     Ah yes, a phoneposter, who would have thought?
     
     You could argue that what I claimed was something akin to; "This tire on this case is made of rubber; therefore, the other 3 tires on the car are made of rubber" (which is correct).
   • Embed this notice
     AndyScott (andyscott@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 05-Apr-2024 10:48:15 JST AndyScott

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Phosphenes

     @Phosphenes
     > It might be more accurate to say 'some modules in some kernels are not free'.

     Indeed, this is far closer to the truth. @Suiseiseki is trolling you with the "fallacy of composition." Your EV analogy provides a reasonable proof by contradiction. Personally, I'll be blocking this person. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 05-Apr-2024 11:34:06 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Number6 :syncthing:
     @number6 >Not that I would defend M$
     Unfortunately, you just proceeded to.
     
     >the cost of the operating system and the software is a fraction of the cost of the machines it runs and and the personnel that use it.
     You might think that, but m$ very carefully ensures that everything from then requires payments of a fortune, so the software rent alone is a large portion of the huge TCO (Total Cost of "Ownership"), although the cost in the amount of time wasted in trying to get work done with m$'s slow and broken software is huge as well.
     
     >Retraining thousands of employees to use Open source products might be more expensive than the cost of the operating system & software.
     You say that, but one army tested how well people could use microsoft office (whatever the writer application is called) and libreoffice writer and found out that usability was the same.
     
     The basic functioning of the programs is the same - the menus are somewhat different on libreoffice (thanks to patents, but the layout is actually better as I noticed) and really, the only retraining required is to let the wagies know that a new word processor will be used from now on and to tell them to get working and they're getting paid to work out the new menus, including searching how to do things in a search engine if required.
     
     The cost of escaping from lock-in may seem high at the start, but once you actually itemize the costs, you will realize that the vast majority of switching costs are created by proprietary sabotage and a fortune will be saved over the long term (within 3 months actually).
     
     >Then there's the problem that almost always there will be essential software that only runs on MS desktops.
     Yes, there will always be lock-in of some sort, but I don't believe any truly essential software that only runs on windows remains (WINE support only improves, but really I can't think of anything you would want to run in that aside from notepad++ maybe).
     
     >And then there's hardware compatibility issues.
     GNU/Linux actually has far better hardware compatibility than windows, unfortunately there is indeed some hardware sabotaged by the manufacturer so it doesn't work with existing drivers, but support for even such broken hardware only improves over time.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 13:53:32 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Gssy
     @wall0159 No, I only handcraft my freedom posts.
     
     I would never generate a reply with proprietary software.
     
     Please point out which parts are "bs" - I bet you can't.
   • Embed this notice
     Gssy (wall0159@aus.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 13:53:33 JST Gssy

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki did an llm generate this BS reply?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 10-Apr-2024 11:12:48 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Gssy
     @wall0159 >me: the Linux kernel is GPL open source
     I pointed out that the GPL family isn't just one license, are NOT an "open source" licenses; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html and how the Linux developers only claim that only part of Linux is under the GPLv2 and other parts are under other licenses - which is relevant as that was me refuting the claims you made.
     
     It's a shame that people can't handle the irony that Linux, the poster child of "open source", isn't even completely source-available, one example being; https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/powerpc/platforms/8xx/micropatch.c
     
     Those are 6502 microprocessor instructions without source code, disguised as an array of numbers and looking back at the git log, "// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0" was inserted by a script and is NOT the license.
     
     Please either prove how such is the source code, that being, the preferred form for understanding and modification or admit that you were wrong.
   • Embed this notice
     Gssy (wall0159@aus.social)'s status on Wednesday, 10-Apr-2024 11:12:49 JST Gssy

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki

     you: the kernel, Linux is proprietary software

     me: the Linux kernel is GPL open source

     you: (100 lines of irrelevant BS about the Linux kernel vs userland processes, and the distinctions between different types of open source licences that have nothing to do what I'm talking about)

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 10-Apr-2024 16:55:49 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Gssy
     @wall0159 >cited some very minor binary blobs >doesn't change the fact that Linux is open source.
     This level of doublethink is incredible.
     
     Lets say we have a GNU/Well. Someone adds some proprietary poison to the well and now the well is 99.95% water and 0.05% poison.
     
     You say that the well is not poisoned as that's only a "minor" amount of poison (after all, it's only 0.05% percentage wise), but if you drink the proprietized water, you're getting poisoned.
     
     The same happens with kernels once you add proprietary software - they become poison for your freedom, as you cannot exercise the 4 essential freedoms with the whole kernel; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms - thankfully GNU has made a 100% free version of Linux available; https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/selibre/linux-libre/
     
     >seriously, is that the best evidence you have to support your argument
     There's many such cases, but I've lost my record of all of them and don't have time right now to re-find them all.
     
     Even though it's only one case, it's perfectly adequate evidence that Linux contains proprietary software and therefore cannot be legitimately be referred to as "open source" by any meaning.
     
     >Your original comment is simply not true >a few binary blobs
     Why do you contradict yourself so many times?
     
     Let me get this straight, you're saying proprietary software, without source code qualifies as "open source"?
     
     The "open source definition" certainly doesn't agree with you; https://opensource.org/osd
     
     You appear be to using "open source" as a buzzword - I'm guessing you mean something along the lines of; "participatory development" and if you mean that, please just say "Linux is participatory" or "Linux is open to commits" (you can even not mention that proprietary ones are accepted too) rather than something completely different.
   • Embed this notice
     Gssy (wall0159@aus.social)'s status on Wednesday, 10-Apr-2024 16:55:50 JST Gssy

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki

     You said "Linux is proprietary software". I said it's not proprietary.

     The fact that you've cited some very minor binary blobs (seriously, is that the best evidence you have to support your argument?!?) doesn't change the fact that Linux is open source.

     Your original comment is simply not true, and no amount of hand-waving about a few binary blobs changes that.