@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo you can use Swift without Xcode or Apple’s proprietary toolchain. The Swift compiler is open source, runs on Linux and macOS, and comes with the Swift Package Manager for builds and dependencies. You can develop CLI tools, libraries, or server apps with just swiftc and your editor of choice.
the catch: if you’re building iOS or macOS apps, you’ll need Xcode, since only it provides the SDKs, simulators, and signing tools.
@ube@spergia.net I just think it's incredible ironic that they decided to go with the one thing that sucks to run any browser, especially a custom one.
Here's a list of communication solutions for a free software project:
Acceptable: Email IRC XMPP Matrix
I don't like it but I can deal with it: RocketChat MatterMost Signal Telegram
I hope you die a horrible death: Slack Discord MS Teams Any other proprietary platform
@SuperDicq like theres all these better alternative right? all without vc. and probably not inside ladybird, i also disagree with discord being used for this but i dont see that from the "doesnt run perfectly inside the software" pov
@SuperDicq acceptable is what it should be, dont like is shit that i dont like but is common enough with software projects and designed for this purpose. all the other ones are just batshit choice for all the same reasons you shouldnt manage your project on discord. also ms teams because fuck teams
@ube@spergia.net Saying you're pragmatic about proprietary software is like saying you're being pragmatic about living in jail, which usually comes down to giant copes like: "At least I don't have to choose my own clothes anymore!".
@SuperDicq im not a foss cultist i'm pragmatic about it. sure i'll prefer open source shit for having better guarantees in privacy and all but i'll use whatever i have to
@ube@spergia.net You keep bringing up security. I never mentioned security. The free software movement is not about security.
But proprietary software is inherently abusive.
If the users do not control the software, the software controls the users.
It's one or the other. You can not avoid this fact by "putting it in a secure sandbox".
The free software movement is about solving a philosophical injustice though hacking the copyright system, it's not about solving a technical problem like an engineer like the "open source" shills want you to believe.
@SuperDicq proprietary software doesn't hold me against my will and abuse me, i open it like any other program, i do what i need to do, and thats that. if i'm paranoid about security i'll airgap and put in a vm or container. if it does the job better or i have to use it (for example from network effect) thats fine. its really not like jail because you can choose to just not use it, which is fine but it isn't inherently abusive so theres no reason i see to do that personally. it's not like i'm using goggle chrome as my daily browser and selling my privacy
@ube@spergia.net i do not patch 99% of my software so there's zero reason i should give a shitThe freedom to modify the software is only 1 of the 4 freedoms. You are again missing the point. i believe the foss movement at large stands functionally opposed to real copyright abolitionPlease do not use "FOSS" as that groups me together with the open source people who I oppose.
The "open source" people are simple status quo normies, they are not in favor of any changes to copyright law because they will say some asinine shit like "NOOOO MY FAVORITE BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY MIGHT LOSE SOME MONEY"
I'm very sure that most of the people in the free software movement are in fact in favor of copyright abolition or at the very least heavy reforms. Stallman for example thinks copyright shouldn't last longer than 10 years among many other reforms.
Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks due to the worship of shit like the gpl that heavily depend on copyrightNot true at all. Copyleft is currently just a means to an end, but not an ideal solution. Ideally we would have actual laws that forced all software developer to grant their users freedom, regardless of copyright.
@SuperDicq i mention security because that is my concern. i do not patch 99% of my software so there's zero reason i should give a shit about whether i can or not, thats not "controlling" me, its just a fucking program you use, it isn't doing anything to you also i dont give a shit about copyright and i believe the foss movement at large stands functionally opposed to real copyright abolition due to the worship of shit like the gpl that heavily depend on copyright. me personally i go for public domain equivalents if i intend to share my code otherwise i dont bother
@SuperDicq > Ideally we would have actual laws that forced all software developer to grant their users freedom, regardless of copyright. no reason to, against the authors freedom, violates nap. but also totally fine if software is reverse engineered, decompiled, hacked, distributed wtv. and yeah open source is the only one that matters for knowing what the programs doing, the other shit is ultimately irrelavent as a user 99,9% of the time
and missing the point? no, i just think its all retarded > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). you can already do this for most cases. sure oh i might pick the foss solution because of some proprietary programs restrictions, but if i can use that, well then it doesnt matter > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). > Access to the source code is a precondition for this. not necessary and coerces developers to do things in a certain way. fine if you want to include that in your software but no reason to make it law (like with restrictive licenses like the gpl) > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). yeah agreed copyright is bs and neither user nor developer should be able to be coerced into anything > The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. this is just 1 and 2 combined, same applies
@ube@spergia.net against the authors freedom, violates napIf you want to go with libertarian rhetoric, a big argument can made for the fact that authors should not be able to take freedom away from their users. Your freedom ends where mine begins.
Distributing software while not including the source code with the program is taking people's freedom away, violating "the nap" in my opinion.
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo Mind you the browser does not claim to even be in Alpha yet, but when I tried to load the Fedi on a nightly build a couple days ago it would not load properly so yeah I high doubt it will get their own chat platform working on it.
I feel they are all "hype" with little substance for people to hang onto. I do think there is a good market and spot for a true "independent browser" (or whatever tagline they were using), but I do not think #Ladybird is the horse to bet on as I feel they will eventually sizzle out into nothing.
@SuperDicq@foxhkron The toolchain is quite literally open and not centered around Xcode for years now. What requires Xcode are the various mac/*OS specific SDKs. The core language and a lot of the core libraries are also open.
@ube@spergia.net Manufacturing instructions are not the same thing as source code.
Instead not having the source code is more akin to buying a car on which only the manufacturer has the keys that open the hood in order to modify or service it.
Yes, most people don't need to ever go in there because they just let a shop do it.
But having the hood of your car inaccessible is really fucking bad, because that means you also can't go to your favorite garage either.
You will be forced to go back to the one who holds the key, every single time.
Oh and as an added bonus the car comes with a contract that if you try to pick the lock to open anyway it you might get thrown in jail.
@SuperDicq i agree that your freedom ends where mine beguns. i disagree not including the code is revoking freedom. do you need the manufacturing instructions of every step of what you buy or acquire? same thing, i see it as unnecessary. and it infringes on the authors freedom without good reason. you can just choose not to use doftware that does that. theres a few things you still realistically cant use foss for and that sucks for you, but for everything else youd be opting in to using it, that doesnt make the author need to do extra for you. theyre not your slave. you have no contract. you just chose to run an executable
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo Trust me the irony is far from lost on me. Very much reminds me of every time a I see a Open Source (TM) project claim how much they love privacy/freedom and then in the next like state how they would love to have you submit a GitHub pull request and join them on Discord. It is all LARPing for the sake of it.
@ube@spergia.net Nobody in the world owns a car like this. And nobody would find these terms acceptable.
And even in software most people don't actually find it acceptable, but they have been conditioned to live with it. Even though deep down inside they know this is an injustice.
@ube@spergia.net Yes, but you didn't read my post. If the manufacturer puts a lock on your hood you can't even take it to any random mechanic, which would be reasonable. No, now you are to take it to the manufacturer only.
In software the same thing applies.
Even if you're not a programmer you might want to pay to someone to fix bugs or add custom features for you.
With proprietary software you're not able to do this. All you can do is beg to the original developer to help you. You can not hire someone else.
@ube@spergia.net And as a programming freelancer this is a huge thing. A lot of my income comes from clients who hire me to work on their existing free software, not making new software from scratch.