If you want to do ANYTHING creative in a digital medium in 2026, you’ll be forced to pay them a monthly fee.
This is giving Adobe too much credit. They suck, for sure, and are monopolistic and have set the industry back, but if people want to do creative things, there are manageable options outside of Adobe. Especially if you focus on alternative software for a particular niche (photography, illustration, compositing, etc).
I love FOSS and Obsidian is literally the only close-sourced software in my stack, but open source is not necessary to prevent enshittification, not if you have interoperability. As long as data is stored in md files, if the obsidian team makes bad moves people can pack up and migrate to logseq or other competitors. While the 3rd party plugins add enhancements that might bog down switching, many of those plugins are open source and could be ported.
Slightly better is still the direction we want to head in. Not sure how else we get off the racketing-effect/boiled-frog path we’ve been on.
Afaik you’d have to open a port and port forward for that to work, and you’d have to update every time your ip changes, unless you have a domain linked to it. There’s lots of other configurations, too: VPN/tailscale or equivalent onto your home network, a vps, reverse proxy, etc. I’ve yet to decide how to access from outside my home. Still tinkering locally, but mumble would be fun to try one day.
This is me, too. Also, not bothered that their instagram algorithm can serve them highly personalized political propaganda just as easily. At least not bothered enough to leave.
+1 for PBS streaming. It’s a great value and highly underrated.
Maybe, but if so, I bet it’s negligible. When it comes to discovery, there’s so many places I’d look for FOSS projects before going GH. Except maybe to check awesome-lists, but you don’t have to be on GH to be linked on one (and I’ve seen them popping up on Codeberg). GH’s design in general doesn’t seem to promote stumbling across new projects. Even if I’m wrong, one could always mirror on GH.
As for contributing, if someone is willing to go though the trouble to contribute, I’d hope they’d go through the trouble of signing up on a new platform. Maybe there’s a non-zero number of contributors who would not, and that’s an unacceptable for some projects. There’s also potential for more contributors if they trust a project is living FOSS principles and less at-risk of vender lock-in. The fosstodon thread shows people care about where a project lives. The arguments in favor of staying on GH seemed mostly inertia-based.
You’re right. I don’t mean to minimize the effort required. The effort required is a big part of the argument in favor of moving, or at least aspiring to move to a platform with more open and interoperable values. I can’t imagine MS will make that transition any easier as time goes on despite forgejo and others best efforts. I’ve no problem with an OSS projects using GH but I’d hope they’d take the risk more seriously in a discussion about it.
Edit: I also don’t think the effort is wasted or insurmountable. Regarding broken links, I’ve stumbled across many projects that have changed their GH repo to a mirror and link to their new platform. And RE logistical v philosophical reasons, I consider avoiding vender lock-in to be risk management and part of a project’s long-term logistics.
I agree, and I can forgive OSS projects still using it, but if they’re inviting a discussion about it I’d hope they’d be more sensitive that:
They seem to think github’s PR, CI, etc features are head-and-shoulders above the rest, and are hand-waving concerns around vender lock-in. They’re also saying it would be painful to move because of the aforementioned vendor features that have them locked in. Really seems to miss why many go FOSS in the first place.
I use and donate[d] to OrganicMaps. I think they’re great, but I paused donations around the CoMaps split and have been waiting for the dust to settle. Their responses in the fosstodon thread seem so tone def: They’re asking about github on a mastodon instance and responding that it’ll be a worse product if they move. Thinking it’s time I give CoMaps a shot. [edit: add 2nd link for context]
This looks awesome! I’d just been collect my GPS data thinking one day I’d analyze/visualize it on my own-- not expecting anyone else to make a such a comprehensive program. The UI looks really slick. I’m looking forward to testing it out. Hopefully this weekend. Thank you for this!
Is a server a requirement? I haven’t tried myself but localsend (p2p) comes to mind.
If you have an old laptop sitting around, put a linux server or NAS distro on it and start tinkering. There can be a lot of analysis paralysis with this stuff. Sometimes it’s best to just try and fail and learn and try again. More likely you’ll try and succeed and realize other wants and needs and redo it a year later. I think that’s why it makes for a great hobby. Lots to learn and improve upon.
Start small, on your local network. Maybe something like paperless-ngx: not very demanding of resources, and (I assume) easy to backup/migrate. You could see about putting it on truenas to get a sense of what that process is like. I personally like to keep a nas and server separate, then mount the nas on the server.
I’ve found owncloud a bit complex and prefer dedicated solutions. For the seas, servarr apps come up a lot. Paperless ngx for docs. Immich (or ente) for photos/vid. If you’re just starting out, installing on linux and/or using docker is going to be your shortest path to success. proxmox or other VMs can complicate things if you’re not familiar.
Substantially improved Affinity Designer files (.afdesign) import
The feature i didn’t know I wanted till now.
Open Prices is something that’s crossed my mind many times. Excited to see it exists and is associated with open food facts.
deleted by creator
I respectfully disagree. While true that Houdini was one of the first visual effects softwares offering an indie license, it was by no means the only one. Substance comes to mind, before the Adobe acquisition.
The timeline is also unconvincing: a considerable number of years elapsed after Houdini entered the market and Autodesk/Maya offered an indie license. However, is does coincide with better blender documentation and rise in YT content that rapidly grew the blender community.
Houdini can do more than FX, sure, and I’ve consistently heard nothing but good things, but its professional use remains relatively [edit: departmentally] niche. So, it may seem to someone in the niche of FX that Maya is losing ground to Houdini, but on a macro level Blender has the features and price point to threaten a larger portion of Autodesk/Maya’s market share. In lieu of better data, I’ll refer to google trends of the three softwares in which Houdini is a flat line at the bottom. I will gladly consider data to the contrary if you have it.
Either way, my main point was that competition is good, and who is responsible for how much doesn’t change that.
I’m confident Autodesk wouldn’t have introduced indie pricing if it weren’t for Blender’s rise in popularity. Competition is good for everyone (except a company like Autodesk trying to get the highest returns for the least effort).
vlc for watching.
mpv for listening.