Danny M

Someone really should maintain a list like that, hosted on multiple non big tech git hosts.

This recent Anti-FOSS propaganda needs to stop

Seconded, and added Haier to my mental list of companies to never buy from.

How about using LDAP? It’s a bit complicated to learn but it’s easy to integrate it in a bunch of applications and it allows you to manage user accounts and permissions in one central place.

Maybe try LLDAP which is a modern implementation (haven’t used it myself) which is designed to be simplified and I assume more welcoming to newcomers.

I wish nix had something similar as I rarely use flatpaks

Yes sir, I sometimes feel sad when a good piece of software doesn’t have a donation button or license to buy

Yep, I feel that too. There is too much gratis software that’s actually good and I want to pay for but many FOSS developers are scared to ask for money for some reason

I only used winrar when I was a kid. I’ve been using linux (and macos) for most of my life and before that I used 7zip for my zipping needs, so no winrar license for me.

I agree, BUT, you should pay anyways. FOSS developers should be paid

In general I agree with you. I find that most FOSS software is more polished than proprietary software, and it is generally more powerful.

However, I think that one problem that people somehow overlook in my opinion is that the financial side of the issue is also extremely important. I want more people to work on quality FOSS software, and I want it to become socially acceptable to work on FOSS as your main job. For that one thing is needed in my opinion: we as users of FOSS software need to give developers the financial incentives to work on what they love the whole time. In fact I want it to reach the point where immoral, non FOSS companies struggle to find developers because they’re all working on FOSS.

it was a pun, this lemmy instance is called beehaw, bee nice

I can give my two cents on it, as one of those people you’re talking about.

I’m very in touch with the FOSS community. I have used more FOSS software than you can think of (and yes, that is with your definition of FOSS). What I am NOT however is a stallmanist or a purist who dogmatically sticks to one narrow definition of what FOSS should be. While I wholly understand the importance of not diluting the meaning of FOSS, I think it’s critical to step back and see the broader picture here. The dogma around FOSS can sometimes be counterproductive, stifling the very innovation and freedom it aims to foster.

Firstly, if I had to choose, I’d certainly prefer to have a software landscape filled with “source-available” applications over one dominated by entirely proprietary systems. Source-available projects, even if not fully meeting the stringent FOSS criteria, still provide transparency and offer opportunities for auditing and modification, which is what we all want! It’s a step towards wresting control from Big Tech and their walled gardens.

Secondly, I aim to push for a new industry standard where, at the very least, source-available software becomes the norm. However, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Thirdly, we have to be realistic about sustaining FOSS projects. The developers behind these initiatives should absolutely be compensated for their contributions. It’s essential to acknowledge that people have livelihoods to maintain. And if a FOSS project (or a source-available one) truly provides value, its creators deserve not just recognition but overwhelming financial success. This is the only way to incentivize more high-quality projects and thereby fundamentally change the software industry for the better.

Lastly, concerning the GPL, while the GPL has played a monumental role in the growth and popularity of FOSS, it’s not without its flaws. For one, it can sometimes discourage commercial adoption, which, whether you like it or not, is a powerful driver for widespread change.

While I’m way more invested in FOSS than most people, I don’t consider myself a purist; I don’t consider myself a Stallmanist and as much as I respect his contributions to software I would rather the world not have his dogmatic and “religious” beliefs in Software.

I believe in a pragmatic approach that not only seeks to amplify the tenets of FOSS but also recognizes the realities of the world we inhabit. Being inflexible in our definitions and approach can only improve our situation.

Let’s not make this sound worse than it is. We don’t need to devolve into Stallman everytime we see software that’s not 100% in agreement with the GPL or other extreme licenses. Let’s celebrate some great software, nitpicking like this is not productive. Their license is perfect for their product; at the very least they’re HONEST unlike big tech companies. I’d rather have “source available” code than proprietary bullshit that can only be understood by spending months looking at it with ghidra