all 73 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 6 months ago (43 children)
  • [–] 54 points 6 months ago (34 children)

    Confusing "FOSS" with "free software" comes to mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (31 children)

    Count Me in the confused group, I thought FOSS was free as in speech software

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    English is a horrible language full of ambiguity. F/LOSS is libre, but not necessarily gratis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Isn’t it usually the opposite, gratis (because if it’s open source, you could just build it yourself, unless there’s a proprietary build env or hosted env) but not necessarily libre (because of the license?)

    So wouldn’t gratis normally be the superset of libre.

    Then there’s a set of gratis but not open source… someone should do a venn diagram.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    I could potentially just say it costs money to use this software, but allow you to build it yourself if you don't want to

    It's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in case you were wondering

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    RHEL contains non-FOSS components, and so is not FOSS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Okay, I'd have to think of a more pure example, but you get the idea. Downloads and support not free, but compile it yourself if you want

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Oh, there's plenty of examples on mobile app stores. Since it costs to get your app on it, there's a natural barrier to entry for FOSS - so the people who do put it up sometimes charge for it despite the source being readily available.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    All natural human languages have ambiguity. English is no better or worse than any other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Ambiguity is inherent in all human languages, agreed. But English is one of the most fucked up languages, and in many ways different than most other languages.

    Possible reason: it is a hybrid language over-prescribed by racist and classist institutions, which currently serves as a lingua-franca and still rapidly evolves because of all the tech and marketing that happens in the US (in other words, what the fuck is a "slopometer").

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Well, I look up the community, no posts. I look up your post history, your sole contributions are calls for a badlinguistics community, or calling out comments for being badlinguistics. I find your crusade rather amusing, and I am here to respond to any possible criticism you have about my greatlinguistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    While I fully realize that this response is probably a waste of my time, hopefully this comment will at least be useful to someone else reading the thread.

    English is one of the most fucked up languages, and in many ways different than most other languages.

    Imma need a source for this claim, as well as a useful definition of a "fucked up language". Linguists unanimously agree that English is a mostly unremarkable language, outside of maybe its dummy-do support phenomena. Its /r/ phoneme is somewhat unusual, but nowhere near the least common sounds in human language.

    English is, linguistically speaking, a pretty boring language, all things considered.

    Possible reason: it is a hybrid language over-prescribed by racist and classist institutions, which currently serves as a lingua-franca and still rapidly evolves because of all the tech and marketing that happens in the US (in other words, what the fuck is a “slopometer”).

    English is not a hybrid language. There are some who have argued that it is a creole (see here), but that hypothesis has mostly fallen out of favor among modern linguists, and either way I highly doubt that as a .ml you want to say that English is fucked up because it's a creole (implying that all other creoles are similarly "fucked up" languages, whatever that means).

    And, while English does have a large percentage of loanwords (over 70%), that's nowhere near as many as, for example, Armenian, with more than 90% of its vocabulary being borrowings. Again, English is unremarkable here.

    Next, all human languages show the results of prescriptivism - English is, again, painfully boring.

    Hundreds of languages have served as linguae francae over the millennia - I don't suppose you'd want to say that Swahili is a fucked up language just because it's currently also a lingua franca? Once again, humans finding means to communicate is a universal linguistic phenomenon, and is not indicative of "fucked-up-edness", whatever that is.

    Whether English (or any other language for that matter) evolves more quickly due to technology is a popular and divisive topic, with good evidence on both sides of the argument. It seems likely that tech does speed up some aspects of language change while also slowing down other aspects. Stating a conclusion here would be premature, but either way, this behavior is identical in all languages that see heavy tech use.

    "Slopometer" is a neologism, which, again, all natural human languages have.

    "/c/[insert_community_name]" is not necessarily linking that community, only invoking it to illustrate a point. "Badlinguistics" was a popular community on the other website for discussing comments like yours.

    Speaking of which, your comment is badlinguistics because it clearly shows a complete lack of familiarity with the modern scientific study of language. Everything you said was not only wrong, but immediately and obviously wrong to anyone who has taken even an introductory linguistics course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    “/c/[insert_community_name]” is not necessarily linking that community, only invoking it to illustrate a point. “Badlinguistics” was a popular community on the other website for discussing comments like yours.

    Well here it is not that popular. It has two members and since you are not the mod, you are probably the one. Since there are no posts why don't you write proper essays instead of attacking random people on Lemmy. I am not gonna respond to this shit.

    English is a human language, ok fucker? But it is an uncommon one, thus making it hard to generalize from English to other languages. This is well known in linguistics. I would bother to get you some quote, but I prefer to leave you seething here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, your comments here make it perfectly clear just how versed you are in what is and is not well known in linguistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago

    How about Pinker? You dig Pinker? I am not delving in the books of this jester without a little wager. Just tell me any linguist you esteem, they probably state somewhere that English is a peculiar language. Then you'll strip for Lemmy if you are wrong mf.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago* (14 children)

    Generally, FOSS includes both copy-left stuff that is free as in speech, and licenses that are restrictive over what you can actually do with that source code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (12 children)

    No it doesn't.

    "Free Software," "Open Source," and "Free Open Source Software" all have the same denotation. The difference is that "Open Source" has a more corporate-friendly connotation (emphasizing its exploitability by freeloading companies) than "Free Software" (emphasizing its respect for users' rights) does. "Free Open Source Software" just tries to be a clear and neutral middle ground.

    Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither "Free Software," "Open Source," or "FOSS."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither

    I am not so sure. What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code. More broadly, from the start CC licenses were described as "Some rights reserved".

    Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license. So I think that your statement is not correct either. FLOSS licenses can very much restrict what you can do, and do so very regularly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

    What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code.

    What? That's not true at all. You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

    Edit: your comment was wrong in multiple ways, and I only addressed one before replying.

    In addition to simply not saying what you claimed it says, CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, "Open Source" because it doesn't appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses. That means OSI either rejected it or didn't evaluate it at all. (I assume the latter, in this case, because CC-BY-SA isn't even intended for software source code to begin with!)

    Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license.

    No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. "Open Source" or "Free Software" licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

    No.

    No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

    This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can't have a socialist biodome specifically for code.

    CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses.

    Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.

    EDIT: "do" = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

    No.

    The rest of your word salad isn't even worth responding to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

    The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.

    Now go refute my other arguments, which totally refute your fallacious statement that open source entails copyleft because Richard Stoolman wants it that way. Let's not discuss what other things he wants his way, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

    Not an open source license, so what the fuck is your point?

    Now go refute my other arguments

    Your word salad isn't coherent enough to form any sort of "argument" in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do; are you saying GPL licensed software isn't Open Source?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do

    No, that's not true. The GPL imposes zero restrictions. Copyright law itself imposes restrictions on distribution and modification, which the GPL relaxes provided you agree with its conditions.

    Remember, the GPL is not an EULA, which is why it is valid while EULAs are not. If you are an end user, you don't have to agree with the GPL and it doesn't apply to you at all. It only kicks in when you want to do something that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Say I'm writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?

    Copyright law has no specifics about source code redistribution. Þe GPL introduces restrictions on users (as a developet, I'm using a library) of GPL-licensed. Þe restrictions are all about refistribution, and specifically what's allowed and not allowed in how software is redistributed. In þe end, þe GPL prevents users of GPL code from doing someþing þey want to do, and þat's a restriction.

    A law against murder may be a good law, but it still a restriction. Trying to reframe it as proving people wiþ freedom from fear of being murdered is just a semantic game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Say I'm writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?

    Sure!

    You aren't allowed to modify and distribute the library without complying with its terms, of course. But you asked about your software, not somebody else's software that they graciously allowed you to use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    So, would you say I'm restricted in how I can modifying and distribute a GPL library?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    No, I would not say that, not even slightly.

    You are absolutely and unambiguously freer to modify and distribute it than you would be if it were left in its default state under copyright law, which is "all rights reserved."

    Why is this apparently so difficult for you to understand?

    To try to paint the GPL as restrictive is a rapist mentality, where you're asserting the "right" to violate the rights of others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    This is not correct. In typical use, copyleft means that you have to redistribute it as free software (GPL and variations). The opposite is "permissive", you can use the software commercially, and charge others to use it as closed source. Copyleft is good for developers, permissive is good for companies.

    So "free as in speech" is not even a good analogy. "Liberated" is more like it, perhaps I will start using libre more strictly...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

    Wine is not an emulator.

    Linux doesn't require programming knowledge to use, just computer knowledge at most.

    I seen a few go opposite end and claim "you do not need computer knowledge, you can just ask chatgpt for the commands and copy-paste."

    The two commands below are equivalent so why the fuck does every single guide online use former?

    sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade
    sudo apt upgrade -U
    
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    "Linux requires constant fixing."

    Use one of the stable distros. You generally never have to worry about breakage if you don't go looking for it.

    Linux actually has a large swath of testers using rolling release who we've tricked into feeling very superior than the rest of us. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    So wait....

    Is the girl drinking from two sources, or is the guy drinking second hand?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I think the implication is supposed to be that people get common misconceptions from tech influencers doing linux videos, but it does kinda work as her drinking from both.

    To put on my fanciest trilby and um actually it, I think a more accurate version would be the straw having "popular misunderstandings" and the man being "linux newcomers". Then it would be pure and correct, and I could sleep at night.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (10 children)

    Ya'll in this comment section are making things more confusing somehow.

    Free Open Source Software:

    Is Free; available without purchase

    Is Open Source; the source code is available to study and fork

    Is Software; A series of intangible instructions that run through a compute module

    Do correct me if I'm wrong, because I've just ripped these from other comments in this thread that have been disputed unclearly.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

    Not financially free but free as in freedom. Although most foss does not need to be bought, but there are foss programs you have to buy and after you bought it you are free to do with it what you want. Although this depends on the licence and copyright. For example you can fork the code and resell it (under certain licences) but due to copyright you can not use certain things such as graphics, fonts and name (depending on their licence).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Graphics font and name fall under trademark I believe, which separates it from copyright.

    Firefox is a famous example of this. The code for Firefox is completely open to anyone to fork and reuse, but you cannot call your fork Firefox. Mozilla retains the brand and the logo for it.

    So instead we get iceweasel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child)

    I'd say that 99.somethiny percent of open source software is also free as in beer

    Come to think of it, I can't remember ever having seen open source software that required payment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    ThFair enough most are free as in free beer and free as in freedom. But that is also the reason why open source is so badly funded. I donate but that is nowhere near enough. I am not Valve, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.. Do not have the funds to hire devs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    but there are foss programs you have to buy and after you bought it you are free to do with it what you want.

    Any examples? I'm just curious how they stay afloat after sharing the source code once someone buys it, forks it and releases the source.
    Maybe 'F' in FOSS does not mean it is gratis (de jure), but it is in fact gratis (de facto) for the majority of FOSS?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) would be an example. I am sure there are more but I am not well versed enough. There is also Ardour but I think that is more if you want a binary and build the software from source.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    but everyone just used centos instead. was that a failure of the commercial foss idea?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Maybe, than again Red Hat was bought for an astronomical some by IBM so they were doing something right. Ubuntu still looks like it is doing well. I do not know how Suse is doing but they still exist.

    So I think commercial foss is not a failure but probably difficult to maintain.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    This is about some nerd telling me my Linux issues don't exist and I just need X distro?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    That's relative to situation and also usually the easier solution to a certain problem because if you need to find a solution for your distro it might come to compiling from source. So, either switch to the distro recommended or just start from Gentoo for everything. If you're using Gentoo, no nerd will tell you to switch to another distro.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    i am a nerd and want to do that just to prove a point. so switch distros! i don't know what to, i haven't used linux since college.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Not using the right distro is the source of everyone's problem, according to the community

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    I mean, certain distros are very good at marketing themselves/becoming well known, but actually impede wider adoption of Linux due to their piss poor choices or issues that aren't apparent until they have been in use for a few months, so sometimes, yes, the answer is to move to something less broken in weird ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Whatever distro you end up on, someone will be in the comments to tell you why it's the wrong choice.

    Unless you're using Arch, btw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago*

    wait someone update this meme to have me drinking out of a straw chain out of the hot dude's straw chain. please title me "complete bullshit lies about FOSS"

    edit: and make me happy gollum with three teeth. that's my mood today.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    I don't think this meme format means what you think it means

  • source