• 3 Posts
  • 77 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 10th, 2023

help-circle


  • Stallman doesn’t seem to get that pedophilia is wrong because of the hierarchy of power, and the power imbalances between older/younger people, not because of some inherent wrongness about being attracted to a prepubescent person. This is shown by how he condemns some pedophilia, but is accepting of 12+/past puberty. (I despise this logic, because it would also make gay sex and sodomy wrong, as well).

    I find this deeply ironic, because his primary issue with proprietary software is the way that it gives developers levels of power over users. From his article Why Open Source Misses the Point

    But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that they are harder to remove.

    You would expect someone who is so in tune with the hierarchies that appear with software developers, publishers, and users, to also see those same hierarchies echoed in relationships between people of vastly different ages, but instead, we get this. I’m extremely disappointed.

    These failures to understand hierarchy and power, are exactly why Stallman shouldn’t be in a position of power. Leaders should continually prove that they understand hierarchy and the effects of their actions on those below them. Someone who doesn’t understand how their power could affect another, shouldn’t be a leader.




  • I think the bigger issue is the copyright violation. You can’t just take others code and change the license. That’s not how it works.

    Stenzek did not do this. He either got permission to change the license of gpl pieces from their original author, or rewrote them. The edit by Leah in her post fails to acknowledge this, but it should be noted that she states the situation has a lot more nuance, and that she is trying to convince steznek to keep duckstation free software, rather thab threatening legal action against him.

    reached out to the bigger community for support.

    Like Near/Byuu did? And how did that go?

    Although, I do agree, and I would rather have free software. But it’s clear that Duckstation going proprietary is his attempt to boycott the retroarch developers.


  • UPDATE on 15 September. I’ve had a talk with Stenzek. This is an evolving situation with a lot more nuance to it than first glance. The decision to make DuckStation proprietary is still terrible, and I intend to rectify this; I’ve proposedh a number of ideas to Stenzek for how to effectively retain DuckStation as a free software project. If this is unsuccessful, I’ll fully fork it myself (from prior to the re-licensing) and probably find people in the PSX scene willing to help maintain it (in that scenario, my role will only be to facilitate and provide infrastructure, while not having an active role in core development, as I already have my Libreboot project which takes all of my time). I simply wish to prevent what is currently the best emulator of its kind becoming proprietary software.

    I hope she’s aware of why the Duckstation dev decided to go proprietary: An ongoing harassment campaign by Retroarch.

    There is a post by Near/Byuu that documents some of the retroarch developers problems, and some of it is especially damning. I read through some of the leaked IRC chats, and they refer to Near by homophobic and racial slurs (the n word, yes), and this behavior clearly hasn’t stopped, given Steznek’s abrupt and harsh reaction.

    On another thread related to this, I mentioned that many people theorize that Talreth (developer of AetherX2, PS2 emulator for android), and Steznek (Duckstation) are the same person. Although there is not hard evidence that they are the same person, their stories parallel in that both of them took code offline because of persistent harassment.

    Leah Rowe taking over a fork of Duckstation is nice, but it doesn’t really do anything. People were already going to fork Duckstation, and the Retroarch team did — in the form of SwanStation.

    She notes this in the email she sends:

    I would also point out that a fork of DuckStation does indeed exist:

    https://www.libretro.com/index.php/category/swanstation/

    I posted about all of this on my Mastodon. Please see the following post:

    https://mas.to/@libreleah/113131594753424867

    Unless the DuckStation author changes the project back to GPL, I would suggest that you all boycott the project, and tell others to do the same; you could send all future contributions to SwanStation instead, which is part of libretro. I would suggest that all future works go to a fork (could be SwanStation), instead of DuckStation, while still permitting Stanzek to contribute; this way, any future abusive re-licensing could not realistically occur. The reason I say this, is because based on my own research, it seems that Stanzek’s bios against the GPL has existed for some time, so I’m uncertain as to whether he could be trusted in charge of a public project.

    But, in the github reply by stenzek

    I find it especially ironic, considering when the GPL was actually violated on multiple occasions, even as recently as a few months ago, nobody ever takes issue with that.

    I like free software too, but this stuff doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I think this and her attempts at action, even with the edit to the post, are premature. Her taking over a fork of Duckstation is nice, but I think she, a transwoman, needs to remember why the Retroarch devs harassed the shit out of Near/Byuu: Because they were nonbinary.

    If she does decided to maintain a fork of Duckstation, I hope she has a plan that allows her to avoid falling victim to the same harassment that eliminated Near, Talreth, and Steznek. Because while a Playstation emulator is nice to have, Libreboot is essential to obtaining a truly free software society.




  • So, officially no. But there are ongoing theories in the r/emulationonandroid subreddit that they are.

    I think it could be either way, but it’s unlikely that they are the same person. In both cases, harassment caused them to shut there projects down, which could be a reasanobale coincidence, or could be indicative of a larger harassment campaign.



  • Because forgejo’s ssh isn’t for a normal ssh service, but rather so that users can access git over ssh.

    Now technically, a bastion should work, but it’s not really what people want when they are trying to set up git over ssh. Since git/ssh is a service, rather than an administrative tool, why shouldn’t it be configured within the other tools used for exposes services? (Reverse proxy/caddy).

    And in addition to that, people most probably want git/ssh to be available publicly, which a bastion host doesn’t do.


  • So, I’m not gonna pretend flatpak doesn’t use more space then normal apps, but due to deduplication (and sometimes filesystem compression), flatpaks often use less space than people think.

    [nix-shell:~/Playables/chronosphere]$ sudo /nix/store/xdrhfj0c64pzn7gf33axlyjnizyq727v-compsize-1.5/bin/compsize -x /var/lib/flatpak/
    Processed 49225 files, 21778 regular extents (46533 refs), 22188 inline.
    Type       Perc     Disk Usage   Uncompressed Referenced
    TOTAL       53%      898M         1.6G         3.6G
    none       100%      499M         499M         1.0G
    zstd        34%      399M         1.1G         2.6G
    
    [nix-shell:~/Playables/chronosphere]$ du -sh /var/lib/flatpak/
    1.7G    /var/lib/flatpak/
    

    I only have one flatpak app installed, and du says that takes up 1.7 GB of space… but actually, when using a tool that takes up BTRFS transparent compression into account, only half of that space is used on my disk.

    I recommend using compsize for a BTRFS compression aware version of du and flatpak-dedup-checker for a flatpak filesystem deduplication aware checker of space used.

    I think flatpak absolutely does use up more space, because yes, it is another linux distro in your distro. But I think that’s a tradeoff people accept in order to have a universal package manager for graphical apps.

    Also, you can flatpak cli tools. They are just difficult to run at first because you have to do the flatpak run org.orgname.appname thing, but you can alias that to a short command. Here is a flatpak of micro, a terminal based text editor.

    (I prefer nix for cli tools though, and docker/podman/containers for services).


  • So based on what you’ve said in the comments, I am guessing you are managing all your users with Nixos, in the Nixos config, and want to share these users to other services?

    Yeah, I don’t even know sharing Unix users is possible. EDIT: It seems to be based on comments below.

    But what I do know is possible, is for Unix/Linux to get it’s users from LDAP. Even sudo is able to read from LDAP, and use LDAP groups to authorize users as being able to sudo.

    Setting these up on Nixos is trivial. You can use the users.ldap set of options on Nixos to configure authentication against an external LDAP user. Then, you can configure sudo

    After all of that, you could declaratively configure an LDAP server using Nixos, including setting up users. For example, it looks like you can configure users and groups fro the kanidm ldap server

    Or you could have a config file for the openldap server

    RE: Manage auth at the reverse proxy: If you use Authentik as your LDAP server, it can reverse proxy services and auth users at that step. A common setup I’ve seen is to run another reverse proxy in front of authentik, and then just point that reverse proxy at authentik, and then use authentik to reverse proxy just the services you want behind a login page.



  • I dunno what’s most appropriate for email, but I often joke:

    Isn’t open source kinda like a cult?

    It’s a not a cult I swear! Just switch to free software, and free yourself!

    I’ve also heard my friend say something along the lines of:

    Free software, free culture, free people

    Or maybe it was free world or free trade? I can’t remember.

    Although, for slogans like this, I might go with something that has more of an immediate effect, like shilling an adblocker.

    • Install uBlock Origin. Blocking ads is one of the easiest ways to increase your security.
    • Install uBlock Origin. It blocks more than just ads, but also tracker scripts that follow you around the net and collect your data.

    Or the ever so simple:

    • Free software means free as in freedom — not as in beer.

    Anyway, I partially agree with the other poster, but I think a one sentence quip at the end of an email is unobtrusive enough that it gets a pass. Of course, it depends on your specific workplace and how strict they are, but I would assume most workplaces have a little space for humanity.



  • Google put an API into Chrome that sends extra system info but only to*.google.com domains. In every Chromium browser.

    Only vivaldi caught this issue. Brave had this api enabled, most likely on accident.

    But the problem is, that chromium is just such big and complex software, when combined with development being driven by Google, it’s just impossible for any significant changes or auditing to be done by third parties. Google is capable of exteriting control over Brave, simply by hiding changes like above, or by making massive changes like manifest v3, which are expensive for third parties to maintain.

    Brave can maintain 1 big change to chromium, but for how long? What about 2, 3, etc.

    My other big problem with brave is that I see them somewhat mimicking Google’s beginnings. Google started out with 3 things: an ad network, a browser, and a search engine.

    Right now, Brave has those same three things. It feels very ominous to me, and I would rather not repeat the cycle of enshittification that drove me away from chrome and goolgle.



  • Why is SSPL not considered FOSS while other restrictive licenses like AGPL and GPL v3 are?

    So I have an answer for this. Basically all of the entities listed that relicensed their projects to the SSPL, also relicensed their projects using the dual licensing scheme, including one proprietary license. That’s important later.

    The SSPL’s intent is probably that the deployment framework used to open source this software must be open sourced. I like this intent, and I would consider it Free/Libre Software, but it should be noted that another license, the open watcom license, which requires you to open source software if you simply deploy it, is not considered Free Software by the FSF. I don’t really understand this decision. I don’t count “must share source code used” as a restriction on usage cases. It seems that the FSF only cares about user freedom, whoever is using the software, and views being forced to open source code only used privately as a restriction.

    Now, IANAL… but the SSPL’s lettering is problematic. What is part of the deployment system? If I deploy software on Windows, am I forced to open source windows? If I deploy it on a server with intel management engine, am I forced to open source that? Due to the way it is worded, the SSPL is unusable.

    And a dual license, one proprietary and one unusable means only one license — proprietary. There’s actually a possibility that this is intentional, and that the intent of the SSPL was never to be usable, but rather so that these companies could pretend they are still Open Source while going fully proprietary.

    But, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume the SSPL’s intent was benevolent but misguided, and that it’s intent was not to be unusable, but rather to force companies to open source deployment platforms.

    Of course, the OSI went and wrote an article about how the SSPL is not an open source license but that’s all BS. All you need to do is take a look at who sponsors the OSI (Amazon, Google, other big SAAS providers) to realize that the OSI is just protecting their corporate interests, who are terrified of an SSPL license that actually works, so they seek to misrepresent the intent of the SSPL license as too restrictive for Open Source — which is false. Being forced to open source your deployment platform still allows you to use the code in any way you desire — you just have to open source your deployment platform.

    Is there some hypothetical lesser version of SSPL that still captures the essence of it while still being more restrictive than AGPL that would prevent exploitation by SaaS providers?

    AGPL. There’s also Open Watcom, but it’s not considered a Free Software license by the FSF, meaning software written under that wouldn’t be included in any major Linux distros.

    I think in theory you could make an SSPL that works. But SSPL ain’t it.

    Of course, there are problems with designing an SSPL that works, of course. Like, if you make it so that you don’t have to open source proprietary code by other vendors, then what if companies split themselves up and one company makes and “sells” the proprietary programs to another.