Notices by Neil Brown (neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk), page 2

The creator of USB Type A arrived at the entrance of Hell, where they were obviously destined to go.

It took the Devil three tries to get them in.

Want a movie night snack that prepares itself automatically at preset times?

Introducing popcron.

"Next year, 2023, will be my thirtieth year of Linux on the desktop, and the thirtieth year of being told it’s not possible to use Linux on the desktop, or to only use Linux on the desktop. Some of the people telling me this weren’t born when I started using Linux on the desktop."

https://blog.liw.fi/posts/2022/goalposts/ by @liw

#Linux #YearOfTheLinuxDesktop

@silverwizard @sldrant @chrisshaw

Hmm... I'm still reasonably clear in my own mind about the distinction between inherent risks in a choice of language, or the risk of bugs, and the design decisions around what a project should consider up front.

I'm certainly not of a mind to push more on people who are already doing amazing things by making their code so readily available, but I am trying not to conflate what I perceive as to separate issues.

@silverwizard @sldrant @chrisshaw In some cases - eg core utilities - yes, sure.

In the context of a platform intended to be used for public multiparty video conferencing, with a reference implementation exposed to the Internet with encouragement for people to use it for "actual" video events, perhaps less grey?

@silverwizard @sldrant @chrisshaw

I spend much of my time in the world of FOSS, and the tech of my business is built on FOSS, so that would be madness :)

@silverwizard @sldrant @chrisshaw

This is fascinating and, to my mind, a separate issue. The original post was not about defects in the code or infringement issues (the typical "no warranty" scenarios), but about whether developers of platforms designed for user interaction (for example) should build in user safety features up front.

Definitely some overlaps, but I'm certainly not suggesting "developers of FOSS should be liable for bugs", or anything like that.

@Aerik @chrisshaw

I am very wary of suggesting that additional burdens should be placed on people who write software for fun, and release it under FOSS licences: that, to me, already feels like a significant public good.

But I've also heard arguments that made me think, that releasing insecure but readily deployable software is worse than releasing no software.

Safety features for open source projects is an interesting one, and I wish I had a better answer.

Do the lead developers of a project have an obligation - legal? ethical? moral? - to build safety features into their codebase. To bake in "safety by design"?

Even if they don't think that they, personally, need those features - which may be privilege talking, or it may be that their specific use case doesn't demand it, but others use the software differently.

@chrisshaw

I've definitely seen an operator-centric analysis a lot and, from an English law point of view, it looks like that's the way a legal obligation might arise.

I'm not sure that it's the only, or even the "right", answer though, perhaps especially when the author promotes uptake of the software for community uses. It feels a bit artificial then.

sudo systemctl disable puns

Recommendations, please, for easy-to-read cyberpunk or similar fiction?

(Here are similar recommendations I've had in the past: https://neilzone.co.uk/2022/01/near-distant-scifi-fiction-recommendations-from-twitter)

@tiffanycli

I've little experience posting about politics, but I add a content wrapper to a reasonable range of stuff - often as a headline as much as a warning - and I've noticed no discernable difference in engagement either.

@cathygellis @tiffanycli I haven't posted the same thing with and without CWs, so it is just my gut reaction. But posts with CWs don't, as a rule, seem to get noticeably less interaction overall.

@tiffanycli @cathygellis @mmasnick

From the perspective of someone in the UK, who follows a lot of people in the USA, it was quite refreshing to see lots of CWs for discussion of the recent US elections(?) or whatever it was, as it made it much easier to skip over that content.

CWs as headlines / titles make a lot of sense to me.

@cathygellis @tiffanycli @mmasnick

> Can't you just use a filter?

Honestly, I don't know. I haven't looked at filtering on here.

> the CWs obstruct my consumption of the content,

Why, if you set your client to ignore / expand them all?

@cathygellis @tiffanycli @mmasnick

> I'd value them for spoilers and explicit content

I think therein lies the problem: keeping everyone happy.

I'm not worried about spoilers, nor explicit (written) content (and pictoral porn is better tagged as "sensitive media", so it gets blurred).

So I just try to use them where I think people who follow me would welcome it.

@admin

Absolutely - most orgs want to avoid genericisation of their important marks.

I don't know enough of the detail to comment on your "waging a campaign" point, and whether it is a case of someone wanting their software to be successful and dominant in its field, versus wanting all other software doing the same thing to use the same term.

@admin Oh - and you can add "heroin" to your list :)

@admin

My views carry precisely zero weight but, trade mark shenanigans aside, I can see why the lead developers of a project might be a bit irked if someone used a domain bearing their project's name, for something identical but using different software, even if the rationale - continuity for users - makes perfect sense.