Well, that's depressing. :(
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopware
List of #FOSS projects using #slop (yes, including the Linux kernel and of COURSE systemd)
Well, that's depressing. :(
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopware
List of #FOSS projects using #slop (yes, including the Linux kernel and of COURSE systemd)
Linux is primarily a tool for fortune-500 companies first, and end-users like thee and me, last.
Given the fact that most Linux contributors are on a corporate payroll, no surprise.
Computing as we knew it, is dead. The future has been robbed from us.
OBI-WAN: That boy was our last hope.
YODA: No. There is another.
I mean, there's always the BSDs, Haiku, heck, the Commodore 64 is back, so anything can happen. ;)
@rl_dane Hah :) Haiku gives me some hope. They do actively resist the ai nonsense, so far,...
The c64 might be the better way to go :D
Anything that needs to be general purpose enough to work with modern hardware is always going to be disadvantaged by having to reverse engineer proprietary drivers and hardware.
There used to be enough people to somewhat keep up with that, and some shift in mentality at the manufacturer side to be a bit more reasonable with providing open drivers and/or documentation, but in the past few years or so, none of that is true anymore.
I am seeing projects long considered stable fall apart due to losing maintainers left and right, and projects that are still alive get flooded with new developers pushing bad practices as if it were a personal crusade. The software landscape in general seems to be slowly unraveling into complete dysfunction.
Sticking with an as-simple-as-possible stack where all parts can be maintained by one person seems like the most reasonable way out of the mess. (there's more capable options other than a c64 these days though ;) - reviving something like Wirth's project oberon on a somewhat more modern fpga would be a fun start.. )
Doesn't seem so:
collapseos-again $ head COPYING
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
I need to spend some time to sit down and read/process the very thoughtful email Michael Dexter wrote me a couple years ago w.r.t. BSD licensing. (I was going to make it into a blog post, but then ran out of time due to family medical stuff).
I don't totally understand the #BSD licensing mindset. In a historical perspective, I totally get it, as it was a University project, but I don't personally understand why a person wouldn't want their license to basically say, "don't use this code to abuse human beings."
Tried to avoid overly rhetorical and drum-beating language in the previous paragraph to limited success. π
I understand that FOSS is against restricting use (especially non-commercial restrictions), but I thought the thrust of the #GPL v3 was to fight against the "TiVOization" of Linux (making a closed product from open components).
I know Torvalds was against it, but what was the point of it, then?
I always heard rms talking about it in the context of "TiVOization."