Do you understand what “comparing” means?
Do you understand what “comparing” means?
And a shortcut to open Microsoft® LinkedIn® at OS level, and what surprises me the most is that uses your default browser instead of always opening it in Edge.
In comparison with Windows and iOS, Mac OS is a paradigm of respecting the user. Of course that’s only because the bar is firmly embedded on Earth’s inner core.
Like everyone using an advertisement company’s browser engine?
And does it deserve to be colonized? Because you are basically justifing imperial colonization.
So, you are telling me that in your enlightened opinion imperialism is a great thing and decolonization was wrong? That’s a take…
So, if any of your local religious leaders is a pedophile you lose your right to self determination? That will massively reduce the number of sovereign countries. To 0.
[Insert Rich Tech bro] is actually a nazi? I’m shocked. Shocked. Absolutely dumbfounded. /s
It would be more newsworthy to find any tech plutocrat that doesn’t have a far-right view of the world. But I would expect them to find a flying unicorn first.
Theoretically they can, in practice it’s less than ideal. And that doesn’t solve all the other distros or the combinatory explosion of supporting several distros and versions.
Flatpaks on the other hand give you a single runtime of your choice to worry about (though they still have lots of cons too).
Until they drop it for flatpak as they did all NIH-driven products.
Probably because PPAs only work on Ubuntu and there are more Linux distros and even then it meant having to build and test a package for a couple of different Ubuntu versions.
The kind that would lock me in a basement replicating expensive-but-useless-on-their-own military components.
I would stick mostly to consumables - food, etc. Maybe some mass produced goods that I could easily donate anonymously. It would be extremely useful and unlikely to catch the wrong kind of attention.
When we talk about human rights we usually talk about the “what”, and talking about just the “what” leads to misconceptions like that. So the question is why we have human rights. And the formulation human right treaties take is some form of “Human dignity is inviolable”, which means that all human lives are worth the same, and that value can’t be diminished in any way. Human rights are then listed in order to protect that ideal.
When you consider this, it becomes obvious that owning humans can’t be a form of the right to private property because it relies on some humans being above others.
That’s also the reason why free speech doesn’t include things like slander or ordering someone killed.
That still requires the email to be in clear text before it gets re-encrypted by Proton mail. SMTPS gets terminated at your email provider’s boundary.
So if I want to improve their software I need to pay them. Got it.
One way of making software more fair is by allowing developers to profit. Many companies today invest resources into taking an existing project and copying the ongoing work of the project creators; afterwards, creating and maintaining a hosted version using their code. In a fair circumstance, should they benefit from using the software, they could add certain features, fix bugs and support the community of users enjoying the product. In many cases they do, but fair-code ensures that this can happen by bringing businesses to the negotiation table when it comes to commercializing software.
This is bullshit when only a set of developers are allowed to profit. Every single project with a non-commercial license I know has an exception for the company that owns the repo. At that point external contributions are not open or fair anything, it’s a company stealing labour.
Either licenses are symmetrical or they are inherently unfair, and calling it Fair is doublespeak.
So a single entity is allowed to commercialize external contributions without any kind of reciprocity. Somehow it sounds worse to me than Shared Source.
If you are worried about leeches just use AGPL and call it a day.
Are you really comparing the use of freedom of association with state censorship backed by literal violence?