What are you looking for? What are your requirements? I mean, gaming? Programming (if “yes”, do your projects require lots of running services/containers?)? Which country are you in?

In Europe, I like using PCSpecialist a lot. They offer thorough customization of the hardware, and their prices are good (they start low, and it gets even lower because they allow you cutting Windows out of the bill). In the US I’ve bought a ThinkPenguin and was happy with it. I didn’t really like my custom-configured Toshiba back in the day. It had weak cooling and was thus very noisy, and it wasn’t done well, deteriorated with time a bit too much.

this is about enlightenment

For me personally, I see enlightment - especially that particular word - in the process of self-perfection and leaning the truth.

I mean, I don’t mind that you have your opinion. It’s just funny to me that you chose this word of all. One that has nothing to do with the reputation system.

“Negative attention is also attention”. In the Linux community where we are in, the fascist DHH was already discussed at least once (in fact multiple times) in the last weeks.

I think suppressing this topic until they run out of money is a better strategy than every time trying to do holy wars. Of course the situation is different if you notice that the person whom you’re speaking with may not yet know. That is not really the case in https://lemmy.ml/c/linux

Can we please stop posting about Omarchy? It’s annoying.

I guess you’re right in a sense that, I’m not aware of anyone specifically getting money with the job “just hurt them somehow”.

I don’t know if people receive money to say other things though. Like that a googlified phone or other things are secure (when they’re much less secure, and that can be proven in the technical realm). Do people receive money for that? I’m aggressively blocking all ads and barely watch any youtube at all, so I’m a bad judge for that. I’ve seen what looks to me as traces of that, but I could be wrong. So I’ll take back my claim and just state that I merely have doubts. Maybe someone can add more information on that. If they know whether people are getting for saying that google is secure, or that some of the alternative firmware is just as secure. It would not be attacking GrapheneOS then, but it would be attacking and muddying the truth.

I don’t get why this is upvoted. Can we just forget that nightmare that Omarchy is? And ignore attempts to bring it back up? Yes 10 for million you can buy a lot of ads, so we’ll have to tolerate some noise for a while, but it shouldn’t last long.

Both absolutely true, AND they live in a world where a lot of money is being paid paid to attack them. It’s like elections in a corrupt country: on paper you may even have fair voting, but in practice there will be constant attempts at sabotage.

They live in a harsh world. Personally, I forgive them their paranoia. A huge chunk of security+freedom on mobile currently stands on their shoulders, and on PinePhone / Librem5.

I haven’t even watched the video, but if the server would implement sharing via torrents, it would be perfectly horizontally scalable, at minimum cost for the server owner. (I assume from the comments that it’s not what is going on at the moment though.)

P.S. Also, thanks for the clarification. It makes sense. I just have to read this more carefully, should I adopt the license. Do you use it by the way?

I was talking about mixing indeed. An example of a license that I think is less strong - but can be mixed with EUPL - is MPL (the Mozilla one). Your quote clarifies what happens in that case though: EUPL’s requirements still hold. I still haven’t looked at it sufficiently carefully. Also, sadly, the referenced page has multiple mistakes so I feel I need to read the actual license in detail before getting convinced. (My take on tivoization is also different than what the author of the page where he says “Note: This is still controversial”.) That page is also just a “news” article, and not a definitive source. So it’s OK to be less polished, but then it means a push for me to trust the license itself only.

From what I understood,

• Here is a good comparison of different licenses: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/solution/licensing-assistant/find-and-compare-software-licenses For example, if I want to compare with major GPL versions (AGPL-3.0, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0), then here is a table: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/licence/compare/EUPL-1.2;AGPL-3.0-only;GPL-3.0-only;GPL-3.0-or-later Although I also think they need to improve this comparison table, because as opposed to the first link, the table does not have an on-hover text to show again the meaning of the different rows.

• This is the English text of the license: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/custom-page/attachment/2020-03/EUPL-1.2 EN.txt

• Here you can see the license in other languages, also in PDF if you prefer: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12

• Strong point of this license: it aims to protect your code and enforces it to remain free in a SaaS scenario, similar to AGPL.

• It allows mixing EUPL-1.2 code with other copyleft licenses, less restrictive than GPL. I haven’t carefully and slowly read yet if it can be used to simply circumvent the copyleft features. Has anyone else publicly analyzed it? Maybe it means that you can use e.g. GPL or MPL inside EUPL-1.2, but not the other way around?

• They clearly pin the jurisdiction! This is big boon. And one way or another, I clearly trust EU’s handling of licenses and law better than that of the US. (Sorry, but that is true.)

P.S. It’s interesting. Has anyone in this (fediverse) community used the license already? What is your impression?

P.P.S. Personally, I wish they would not start their PDF with preambles such as

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2017/863
updating the open source software licence EUPL to further facilitate the sharing and reuse of software developed by public administrations
In order to further facilitate the sharing and reuse of software developed by public administrations concerning the use of an open source software licence, a new EUPL version, EUPL v. 1.2, should be adopted.

If I read this word-to-word, my brain wants to zone out. I cannot / don’t fully want to understand what they’re talking about. I want the license first, and I want to learn when and how it came to be later, on a separate page. (Not joking or being sarcastic here, I literally would want it later, e.g. last page or referenced below.) Otherwise it distracts attention and it gives me a feeling that they might be too full of themselves and busy virtue signaling, as opposed to being a strong ally and have my back covered. Maybe I’m exaggerating? Anyway, that’s just one downside. I do like some of the other parts listed above.

Ah, and please add the stock -Suy process to the pain points. It alters the local database even when downloads haven’t fully finished yet (as it is out-of-the-box at least), so if downloads fail mid-ways you have to remember to not dare installing any particular package before a full upgrade still. If you forget, you’re toast.

Seconding that. I’ve just read through the website. Got interested. Then my eyes went to the top panel again finally, I’ve read “GitHub”, and my thoughts are “Huh? But this mismatches the rest of the page, especially with the AI stance and some push for simplicity combined with competence.”. Went back here to write about it.

/me a ~10 year old ArchLinux user (using Arch for this long, my Earth age nobody cares about including me anyway). I’m thinking if I wanna actually try this for real. I currently have manually written packages that define the OS dependencies and configuration, and I don’t like the mutability of everything, the default update handling of no-longer-dependencies, the .pacnew… I still like and appreciate Arch obviously, but the pain points connect.

It’s really surprising that OpenAI’s CEO thinks this way! Totally worth the article! </sarcasm>

It is if you use cryptography or cryptographically secure hashing.

Still blocked. Europe, Wednesday 7 AM.

I agree. Specifically, it’s privacy AND freedom (free software development model).

If these two are against maximum security, GrapheneOS consistently chooses security. Which is unfortunate for me, because I would consistently choose freedom. (Especially due to long-term considerations.)

and distribute the apks on a different website

Or with distributed technologoes such as torrents. Then it’s cheaper to operate any required servers.

I think I can understand, especially if I categorize it as “data analysis” in my brain (could be the wrong terminology though, I’m not an expert). Possibly as part of a bigger actual research.

I agree that it’s helpful there. It’s probably also niche enough that AI-written websites don’t create 10 articles for every 1 legitimate as otherwise happens in 95% rest of the internet. You’re in a lucky spot.

I don’t know what kind of research you do personally, but for me, even purely for learning, AI is a total negative. Google and duckduckgo have essentially become unreliable. I can get “answers” to every question on earth so to speak, but I have no chance of knowing whether it’s correct, except if I already happen to be an expert in the area. That is somewhat offset by the fact that AI does good search and information retrieval if I can later verify for correctness. Also for learning, sometimes I can throw code/info at AI and it may do a pretty good job at analysis, which may help facilitating learning (“research”?). But the total, especially for research, is a solid, solid negative.

And then I remember all the problems that are currently attached to AI, and… Yeah. Good job SourceHut for focusing on one problem at a time, and the problem now being to continue to provide reliable code hosting and development services.