@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz And I don't have anything against Linux, it's great software and I use it every day. But I have yet to hear a good argument for (exclusively) using the name of the kernel to represent a huge family of operating systems. MacOS/OS X is also not called Darwin or XNU (apparently that's the name of the kernel), for example. I'm not saying everyone who uses it this way is wrong but the arguments for it that I know are not convincing, given the history of free operating systems.[7/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz I don't get why discussions about terminology turn into weird accusations against each other. The terminology is not the most important thing to talk about, but it is an indication of the underlying values and goals, and those are definitely important. I tried to argue why it is important to think about the different implications of #FreeSoftware and #OpenSource, not that one term is "better". Both are valid, but they focus on different things, and this is IMO important. [8/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz When I mentioned distributions I was talking about the big ones like #Ubuntu, their website is full of logos of multi-billion-dollar companies. #OpenSource is mentioned 14 times, but it doesn't even mention the word free, let alone freedom (or #GNU of course, even though it admits to be "more than #Linux"). I'm not even claiming that they don't care about #SoftwareFreedom, but it doesn't seem to be a priority. [6/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz And I don't have anything against Linux, it's great software and I use it every day. But I have yet to hear a good argument for (exclusively) using the name of the kernel to represent a huge family of operating systems. MacOS/OS X is also not called Darwin or XNU (apparently that's the name of the kernel), for example. I'm not saying everyone who uses it this way is wrong but the arguments for it that I know are not convincing, given the history of free operating systems.[7/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz So when I say the use of #OpenSource can be problematic, I am not claiming that all people who use the term do not support #SoftwareFreedom, but that it can be and is misused to "openwash" #bigtech companies. It makes it easy for companies to turn the discussion away from software freedom to simply open source development and the benefits of that for everyone, when it's obviously primarily for their benefit. [5/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz When I mentioned distributions I was talking about the big ones like #Ubuntu, their website is full of logos of multi-billion-dollar companies. #OpenSource is mentioned 14 times, but it doesn't even mention the word free, let alone freedom (or #GNU of course, even though it admits to be "more than #Linux"). I'm not even claiming that they don't care about #SoftwareFreedom, but it doesn't seem to be a priority. [6/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz The companies can still add proprietary extensions or only make part of the software open source or make the software rely on proprietary services or whatever other ways there are to suck money or data out of it and enshittify it. [4/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz So when I say the use of #OpenSource can be problematic, I am not claiming that all people who use the term do not support #SoftwareFreedom, but that it can be and is misused to "openwash" #bigtech companies. It makes it easy for companies to turn the discussion away from software freedom to simply open source development and the benefits of that for everyone, when it's obviously primarily for their benefit. [5/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz What I am trying to say is that words do matter (as you mentioned). There is a reason why most big tech companies support #OpenSource software in some way, and I would argue it is not because of any #freedom they want the users of their software to have, but simply because it can make a lot of sense to develop software openly. It can lead to better quality and there are a lot of motivated skilled people who might contribute for free if they think the software is useful. [3/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz The companies can still add proprietary extensions or only make part of the software open source or make the software rely on proprietary services or whatever other ways there are to suck money or data out of it and enshittify it. [4/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz First of all, I'm not arguing for RMS. I've never met him, only read a few of his texts and some things about his controversial comments that got him to resign from the FSF. This is in no way about him, from my perspective (apart from some of his ideas being present). I don't support the person RMS, but I do support the values of the movement he helped start [2/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz What I am trying to say is that words do matter (as you mentioned). There is a reason why most big tech companies support #OpenSource software in some way, and I would argue it is not because of any #freedom they want the users of their software to have, but simply because it can make a lot of sense to develop software openly. It can lead to better quality and there are a lot of motivated skilled people who might contribute for free if they think the software is useful. [3/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz I didn't say the #Linux community doesn't care about #SoftwareFreedom and it wouldn't make any sense. Any generalization like this is counterproductive and will only split a community that is small enough already.
(This turned out longer than I wanted unfortunately, sorry. But I think a real discussion about this is important and maybe someone will want to read it.) [1/8]
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz First of all, I'm not arguing for RMS. I've never met him, only read a few of his texts and some things about his controversial comments that got him to resign from the FSF. This is in no way about him, from my perspective (apart from some of his ideas being present). I don't support the person RMS, but I do support the values of the movement he helped start [2/8]
In SLIME/Sly when compiling a file with 'slime-compile-and-load-file' (C-c C-k) I can navigate between notes with M-n and M-p. Is there also something like that for compiling #asdf systems or do I have to compile files manually?
#lisp #commonlisp #emacs
@emacs@lemmy.ml
What flags do I have to use for a #guix container to avoid crashing the browser when I press C-s (I keep accidentally pressing it when I want to search for something :)
Right now I use:
guix shell --container --emulate-fhs --network --no-cwd --preserve='^DISPLAY$' --preserve='^XAUTHORITY$' --preserve='^XDG_RUNTIME_DIR$' --expose="$XAUTHORITY" --expose=/dev/dri --expose=$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/pulse torbrowser
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
Sure, the kernel is the core of any operating system, so to understand how they work you need to learn about the kernel. But an actually usable OS is much more than that, even without a GUI. To have an actually free OS you need a compiler to build it (GCC), you need to be able to write the source code (GNU emacs, obviously the best editor that ever existed), you need to manage files etc. (GNU coreutils, binutils), you need a shell (GNU bash),...
@graves501@fosstodon.org @normplum@fosstodon.org @gumnos@mastodon.bsd.cafe @TheOneDoc@tech.lgbt
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
I think it's not easy to find free software that doesn't in some way depend on #GNU software.But the more important point IMO is that GNU stands for the overarching(and extremely ambitious) project, not any single piece of software. It's as much an ideological project as it is a software project.That's IMO the main problem with people leaving it out of the discussion and instead using Linux for the whole OS and "open source" when it should be about freedom and not openness.
@tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz