• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 6th, 2023

help-circle

  • Ubuntu: 😮why?

    For a lot of people Ubuntu is the linux. Canonical is just good at marketing. For all it worth, Ubuntu is not the bad choice for average user who’s not into ricing and not bothered by bloat.

    Manjaro: haven’t you managed to kill it yet?

    I’ve been using Arch and Manjaro for couple years each and in my experience they both break regularly. But, for some weird reason, Arch Linux is praised, when Manjaro is shamed upon.

    Mint: ex windows guy?

    Aren’t we all?





  • Zip is fine (I prefer 7z), until you want to preserve attributes like ownership and read/write/execute rights.

    Some zip programs support saving unix attributes, other - do not. So when you download a zip file from the internet - it’s always a gamble.
    Tar + gzip/bz2/xz is more Linux-friendly in that regard.

    Also, zip compresses each file separately and then collects all of them in one archive.
    Tar collects all the files first, then you compress the tarball into an archive, which is more efficient and produces smaller size.






  • Well, then you have to find another name for that kind of software and define it that way. I certainly would support such an effort, i.e. to make software available to everyone at no cost.

    There’s no need to come up with new terms or change the existing ones. Free software is inherently free in price. And you can’t enforce paying for software without the restrictions put in place (e.g. drm). Here’s a quote from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html :

    With free software, users don’t have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.

    Free software can have a price, but paying it is optional.


  • I meant that free software is inherently can’t have a price. Even if you provide source code only to your users, they are free to share that source code for free.

    Thus there can’t be piracy because piracy of free software is inherently allowed.

    And if you try to prevent your users from sharing the source either legally or with drm - you add restrictions to software, making it less free for your users.

    The recent situation with RedHat provides good demonstration and example of this.


  • It’s free as in freedom, not as in free beer.

    But you can’t have one without the other. Putting a cost on software is adding a restriction, thus making it less free (as in freedom).

    Free software should be available to everyone, even to people who don’t have money to pay for it (poor third world countries, students, kids).

    I personally believe, that you should pay for software that helps you earn money. For everything else - it’s everyone’s own decision to donate or not, based on a financial situation, beliefs, political position and what not.




  • janAkali@lemmy.onetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldLet’s try it?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    8 months ago

    I thought about this for some time. An anarchy would always collapse into governed state.

    First, imagine the perfect scenario where there no authority and world is just a lot of tiny city-sized communities. It would take just a single bad actor to form a state, start invading neighboring communities and growing in power. In response - other communities would be forced to group into increasingly bigger states to have a chance to oppose influence from bigger/richer states.

    This thought experiment also works if violent takeover is replaced by economic one. Think of cartels and monopolies.