This is a long time coming TBH. It hasn’t made sense for at least 10-15 years for Microsoft to still be trying to “win” against Linux. To me when I see it it seems weird. It’s like your old grandpa who still talks about the “japs” when he sees someone driving a Toyota.

Linux runs most of the smartphones in the world, and a BSD fork runs the rest. It’s done. No one is going to deploy Windows Server 2023 edition to run their web services unless something’s gone pretty badly wrong. We’re all focused on AI and cloud computing now, and have been for some time.

The most critical thing a business can do to remain successful is recognize and adapt to the new reality.

1. Settings & Beta -> Data controls -> Export data
2. Unzip

Python 3.11.3 (main, Apr 21 2023, 11:54:59) [Clang 14.0.0 (clang-1400.0.29.202)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import json
>>> with open('conversations.json') as infile:
...     convos = json.load(infile)
... 
>>> for convo in convos:
...     for key, value in convo['mapping'].items():
...         message = value.get("message", None)
...         if message:
...             parts = message.get("content", {}).get("parts", [])
...             for part in parts:
...                 if 'text to search' in part:
...                     print(part)

4. Customize to taste

So, as weird as this is to say after I joined with others in telling you your question was bad / unfair, I actually think pretty similarly to you in terms of the value of free speech. I have an instance set up which I’ve been neglecting as I work on some other projects, but once I get time to get back around to it, I plan to operate it as a semi-production server, and to federate with some of the “banned” right-wing instances mostly out of curiosity to see what’s on them.

If you’re interested in an account on my instance, send me a DM and let’s talk, as I do somewhat support your mission. Just I would repeat that as far as I can tell, defederating in practice has not a lot to do with “free speech” and more just with operational sustainability (choosing who to federate with not because you object to what’s being said on certain servers, but just as a matter of keeping illegal or clearly destructive behavior off your instance so that it can continue to function well.)

I’ve argued with tankies at length on lemmy.ml, and just this morning I posted this, and I’ve never had any kind of problem with being banned or having posts or comments removed. I had my posts removed from both the right and the left on reddit, which pissed me off in both instances, but I’ve literally never seen it happen yet on lemmy.world.

I suspect that what you want is not “free speech,” because as far as I can tell, that already exists here to a pretty firm degree. If you really want to federate with everyone, you can run your own instance. If you want someone else to do the work of running the instance, but for them not to be able to defederate to protect themselves from abuse or illegality, I’m not sure what to tell you other than good luck with that.

That’s awesome, this is exactly what I was looking for (or a start towards it at least).

You’re not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.

I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn’t mean someone who’s on the other side suddenly shouldn’t be an executive of anything.

You’re not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.

I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn’t mean someone who’s on the other side suddenly shouldn’t be an executive of anything.

Why was appointing Eich as CEO so controversial? It’s because he donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California’s state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

I want to try a thought experiment. Imagine that you observe this comment in reaction to the above:

I just don’t get why the author is so pissed about their political contributions. Guess what, people who are involved in big business are usually right-wing and support right-wing organizations. Shocking. Who could have known. I don’t even want to imagine how the author comes to the conclusion that this is some big conspiracy but I think we all know what political spectrum that guy belongs to.

What I just wrote is a mirror-image version of the top rated comment on that article from a few days ago about the Mozilla foundation funding left-wing organizations. Do you agree with one of those statements and not the other? If so, why?

It is one-sided to say that someone involved in Brave should only be “allowed” to do so if he doesn’t support anything conservative. Just as would be one-sided and wrong to say that Mozilla shouldn’t be “allowed” to support left-wing organizations. Flipping it around, and looking at the reaction when it’s the other way around, is an easy way to analyze your own internal reactions on it.

(Generally, I’m in agreement with the idea that you shouldn’t use Brave because of all these other shady things; just this one part jumped out at me as one thing that’s not like the others.)

Looks like maybe the link is just to the image?

I definitely type cp -i and mv -i by habit, and I have a ~/trash directory that I often move stuff into instead of deleting it and then periodically blow away completely. I agree with some other commenters that all the stuff in .bash_profile is maybe not a good idea, but I find that just doing those three things creates a lot more safety than just the “you said to remove it so now 5ms later it’s gone forever” Unix default.

This is a masterfully Orwellian post. So, Redhat is threatening their customers with withdrawal of support that they depend on quite deeply, if the customers exercise their rights under the GPL. In response, the community got upset. Redhat’s response is:

I was shocked and disappointed about how many people got so much wrong about open source software and the GPL in particular —especially, industry watchers and even veterans who I think should know better. The details — including open source licenses and rights — matter, and these are things Red Hat has helped to not only form but also preserve and evolve.

So, as of 15 years ago, the total value of what Redhat is selling was estimated at around 10 trillion dollars. The fraction of that that was created by Redhat is, fair play, higher than most companies that distribute FOSS software. They are, in terms of code, a significant contributor (especially in the kernel). But what they’re building on in the first place is this multi-trillion dollar thing that they got for free. The only caveat was that they need to maintain the same freedom for others that they made use of.

So, when people ask them to do that, they say:

I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own profit. This demand for RHEL code is disingenuous.

I see. It’s yours, and we’re not allowed to repackage it for our own “profit.” Because:

Simply repackaging the code that these individuals produce and reselling it as is, with no value added, makes the production of this open source software unsustainable.

Got it.

I’m not asking them to make available the exact same code; nothing says they have to make RHEL available to anyone other than their customers. It’s conventional in the open source world to do so, but not required, and they’ve chosen not to because they have this business model of selling GPL software and making it difficult to obtain for free what they’re selling.

Trying to make a profit through that business model is fine. Having that as their business model doesn’t give them the right to violate the license though. They are threatening their customers if their customers exercise their right to redistribute RHEL (with the apparent goal of making RHEL, the exact product, difficult to obtain for anyone other than their customers – basically building on other people’s work for free, without honoring the terms of free redistribution under which those people made their work available to Redhat for free).

In GPL v2, the relevant text is in section 6:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.

If that were accurate, then what Redhat is doing would be fine. The issue is that they’ve been requiring that their customers not exercise their rights under the GPL to copy or share the source code that Redhat is providing, with the threat of cutting off their support if they do. There’s an unsettled argument on whether that is actually a violation of the law that grants them the ability to sell someone else’s work in the first place, or merely a gross violation of the spirit that most of the people who authored the source code they’re selling would be 100% opposed to. But it’s at least one of those things.

The GPL exists so that companies can’t just take the code and contribute nothing back.

This isn’t accurate, though. The GPL says nothing about contributing anything back in terms of authoring improvements or making them available. What it says is, you can redistribute our work, or even sell it, but you need to make sure that people who receive it from you also have those rights.

I’m aware that Redhat is comparatively speaking, a huge contributor to the FOSS ecosystem. But, if the amount of code they’ve written is huge, the amount that people outside Redhat wrote that they’re selling is gargantuan. I would be very surprised if as much as 5% of the code they’re selling to their customers was anything they authored. If they want to sell the other 95+%, I think it’s fair to ask that they obey the licensing that allows them to.

Lemmy reads wrong data sometimes from the backend. That’s why you’ll see your username flash to someone else’s username sometimes, or the vote count on the post you’re looking at go to the totally wrong vote count. Sometimes it replaces the actual story you’re reading with some totally different, unrelated story.

IDK man, I have trust that as part of the work they’re doing working on any massive number of innumerable minor issues with the platform, fixing that is somewhere in there. 🙂

Right, this source is just weird. The story is 100% real, and honestly probably a problem to the extent that Microsoft and the Linux Foundation are even relevant anymore, but everything in this is told in this hyperbolic style that makes it hard to even make sense of.

just like the Open Source Initiative, where most of the money comes from Microsoft

Is this true? This doesn’t sound true.

and the official blog promotes Microsoft, its proprietary software, and Microsoft’s side

https://blog.opensource.org/

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog

What is this even talking about? Where does whichever of these blogs this is talking about promote Microsoft’s proprietary software?

in a class action lawsuit over GPL violations (with 9 billion dollars in damages at stake).

I was really curious because I hadn’t heard of this. It turns out it’s the Github Copilot lawsuit. I could be wrong, but I’ve looked and I couldn’t find this $9 billion number anywhere else; it sounds like it’s arrived at by simply assuming that 1% of code that Copilot produces is infringing, and computing DMCA damages based on that 1%. It’s not really clear to me whether that argument was just an illustrative example of the scope of the problem, or whether they’re actually asking for $9 billion, but I tend to assume the former. In other venues when the litigants have been asked what remedy they want, they’ve said things like, “We’d like to see them train their AI in a manner which respects the licenses and provides attribution,” as opposed to “we want $9 billion.”

Etc etc. I picked out a little excerpt, but the whole article is written like this which makes me look at it sideways.