I mean.. isn't the point of decentralization that you can build your own service with the same protocol and still communicate with the other services?
There are ongoing initiatives for alternative stacks speaking the AT protocol, like Northsky, or Indiesky.
There's also community-run labelers and blocklists for moderation. You can make the moderation stronger, what you might not be able to do is make it weaker if the PDS takes an account down fully, or the indexer/relay refuses to use it.
This depends entirely of what you mean by "of Windows" and what you mean by "for Linux". This terminology is ambiguous.
Are you a Lemmy user for lemmy.world, or are you a lemmy.world user for Lemmy?
It's also inconsistent because when they say, for example, "Microsoft Azure Linux Container Host for AKS", they are talking about running a Microsoft Azure Linux Container inside of AKS, not a container that is meant to be used for running AKS within it...
The whole Savannah service still feels like it's intended for SVN... it feels very outdated.
Not just Guix but the whole hosting from GNU should have in place a forgejo-based solution, imho. I'm not saying they should throw away the emailing system.. but they should wrap it around a more modern and more integrated solution.
Can you tell me the political affiliation of the creator of grep? I use that tool a lot.
I think it's impossible to know for sure what the political thinking of the people involved in everything that happens to have contributed to something in your life is. Some people are not even easy to discern.. some people are interpreted out of context, some people are just caught in drama.
I'd rather take advantage of their work, be thankful for it but without any sort of para-social intent, just thankful for the mathematical algorthms.
It's more abstract than that, because this started with "recommending hyperland", not with "I support the creator of hyprland".
I assure you most users don't know (or care) about the creator of the software they use.
I don't know about you, but me, myself, don't really know the creators of every piece of libre/open source software I use.
I've even contributed to software some changes I wanted, without even knowing or caring who the creators or contributors of the other components were.
So, with that in mind, it's not hard to imagine how this could raise a few eyebrows in people who do not agree with the approach.
If, by supporting this theoretical Nazi science genius, I enable him to better perform Nazism, then I have been morally complicit in his Nazism
If you think anything that could benefit him is enabling that, then there's all sort of things that are complicit. Even the public social services and the State might be complicit, even people who pay taxes might be complicit.. international influence/opinion, the whole world, society would be complicit.
I'm a believer of honesty and direct punishment for direct precise problems. The more abstract the punishment, the most likely it is you'd end up with the innocent paying for the sins of the guilty.
I think people should be aware of the exact reasons why something is bad, as opposed to punishing a general abstraction without actually addressing the root of the problem. I've seen how this often results in people religiously believing something is good/bad based on sheep thinking, and this leads to situations that actually create more Nazis than what they destroy. An unjust punishment is just a badly patched up wound that will not really heal and instead extend to other parts. Have you considered this in your calculation of moral consequences?
How about we just tell the truth as is?
But that's exactly what I mean when I say recommend good software and recommend good thoughts.
Why do you assume I wanna "hide" problematic information? Did I say that? What I'm saying is don't hide the fact that good things are good. The good car will be a good car, and the manufacturer being problematic will be a problematic manufacturer.
Recommending the good car does not imply that you support the manufacturer, and denouncing the manufacturer does not imply that their cars are bad and not something we should recommend.
What's the manufacturer of the device you are using right now?
If a notorious criminal created a cure for cancer, I'll sing praises to his amazing work, asking everyone to use it. But that dos not mean I approve of their crimes. It would be perfectly consistent with my praise of his work to, at the same time, ask for him to to be judged and sentenced accordingly for the crimes he committed..
The world is not black and white. People are not angels just because they have one good thought, nor do they become monsters that poison everything they touch if they have one wrong thought.
Define lack of design. You mean theming? because Linux has way more customizable theming options than the proprietary alternatives, to fit all kinds of subjective tastes.
You mean usability? it's the one system that you can rice up to do absolutely whatever you want to do to fit your workflow, you can configure any key to automate literally anything a desktop can do.
The catch is that you actually do have to get your hands dirty if you want to mold the system to your liking.. as opposed to being your own tastes the ones molding to adapt to whichever the designer of the OS decided should be the new tacky fashion or workflow.
So the bad thing is the off chance that he would benefit?
Because that's a very different thing. Then this should not be about judging morals related to the thing they made, but executing punishment for a completely separate thing they did.
Then it's not a disagreement of morals, it's a disagreement on the approach you are taking to execute that punishment.
I’d be very wary of using any of his breakthroughs
Ah, but will you still use them? will you promote his breakthroughs if they help people? what if his scientific work leads to the cure for cancer?
Punish the nazi political work, promote the scientific work.
The more people learn to drive, the bigger the chance they'll get a private car, the more accidents, the more people will die. Thus: let's recommend everyone to not learn to drive.
I feel this path is sort of a baby-sitting approach to recommendations. Not only do I have to know if the software if good before recommending it, I also have to research if there's a chance that whoever I'm recommending it to might find a community somewhere for which they might lack enough critical thinking to judge on by themselves?
How about we recommend good software when it's good while at the same time recommending good ideals / good thoughts when they are good?
It's morally wrong to promote bad things, and morally good to promote good things.
Just because I admire the theories Isaac Newton came up with and I encourage others to learn about them does not mean I support everything Isaac Newton did, said or thought.
All of our society is built on the shoulders of giants who did a lot of "good" despite being, in most cases, "bad people".
Does the DCO really offer a real guarantee? it looks like it just adds a
Signed-off-by Johnline at the end of the commit, with no actual signature checking that enforces any particular version of a particular document is being acknowledged. IANAL but it doesn't look like something proven to work in court to give legal protection.Sure, it's easier to simply add a sign-off-by line than actually accepting a legal agreement, so it reduces the barrier of entry, but if this were really enough to establish the conditions to shift liability then I don't see why companies wouldn't start using their own DCOs and extending them, essentially just being a more convenient CLA (which is a license agreement, not a copyright transfer, even if some might add terms that allow relicensing.. which anyway is already possible given the project is already MIT licensed).