beyond

But they told me I can just not connect it to the internet and it'll be just like any dumb device.

Eventually these things will come with modems built in so you can't even do that.

Vivaldi's target audience is people who don't mind proprietary blobs as long as they are "good" or make things "work better." Given that Vivaldi itself is essentially a proprietary blob combined with a Chromium backend this makes sense.

The most obvious difference going from Debian stable to GNU Guix is that Guix is a rolling release distro, not stable (in the Debian sense) at all.

Package management is also very different as it's fundamentally a source based distro, although sometimes the build servers can provide prebuilt packages if they're available. Also, Guix has the concept of "profiles" which group sets of installed packages; typically, there is a system profile as well as a profile for each user, but users can also create their own separate profiles. This means that a user can install packages to their own profile without needing root permissions.

Profile updates are done in an atomic manner, such that changing the set of installed packages (installing, updating, or removing a package) actually creates a new generation of the profile, and it's possible to roll back to a previous generation if something breaks. This is true of the system as well as the user profile(s), of course. A profile generation can also be exported as a manifest, which can then be imported to create a profile generation on another system, allowing package management to be done in a declarative manner.

Finally, Guix has a commitment to ship only free software, and uses linux-libre as its kernel. Debian has a clear separation between free and non-free components but does ship non-free software, including firmware blobs, and I believe as of recently the installer provides them by default. There are unofficial Guix channels (=repositories) that provide these things.

Currently I run GNU Guix on my desktop, laptop, and servers. I like the dedication to software freedom and the way package management works. Before that I used Debian until 2019, Trisquel until 2014, and Ubuntu until around 2010. Debian and Trisquel are fine and I don't have anything against them, I just like the Guix package manager more. I've used Xfce with all of these (and before then, GNOME 2). I set it up the way I like it and it never changes.

I typically run LineageOS on my mobile devices, without microG or any proprietary apps. As I've said before my preferred OS would be some variant of GNU/Linux, preferably Guix as well, but LineageOS works well enough.

I run OpenWRT on my router, and had a previous router than ran LibreCMC (a variant of OpenWRT using Linux-libre).

Windows games are made for Windows so I prefer to use Windows for them. I don't particularly want to turn GNU/Linux into Windows, I think it deserves better than that.

It's worth noting the reason why Molly isn't available on F-Droid proper: it's entirely F-Droid's decision. F-Droid policy requires that developers support (or do not oppose) inclusion in F-Droid, which Signal's developers haven't. Signal's developers are also hostile towards forks and do not want them interoperating with Signal. Thus, F-Droid does not allow Signal or any fork of Signal.

https://gitlab.com/fdroid/rfp/-/issues/2297

I am not really a fan of this decision, I don't think it's logical that an upstream can forbid a fork from being published anywhere - but that's F-Droid's call to make.

Everyone can write a new version of the GPL.

The standard GPL permission statement explicitly clarifies that the license is "as published by the Free Software Foundation" so any later version of the license has to come from the FSF.

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

The reason for the "or later" clause is to allow the FSF to update the GPL in response to flaws that are discovered. The "or later" clause is controversial because it effectively allows the FSF to change the licensing terms of any software licensed under such a clause, and so some developers who don't trust the FSF with this authority omit this clause. Famously, Linux is licensed only under GPLv2 with no or-later option (Linus has been a vocal opponent of GPLv3)

I don't think the ffmpeg maintainer is complaining that Microsoft is using ffmpeg, rather that they are opening "high priority" bug reports based on customer complaints. This might be a high priority problem for Microsoft but that does not make it so for ffmpeg.

The license allows Microsoft to use ffmpeg but they aren't entitled to demand free labor from the project. Really, no one is entitled to do so, but Microsoft being a large company who can definitely afford to put money or talent on the problem makes it only that much more egregious.

edit: I would note that asking for help or reporting a bug is usually welcome, the problematic part is demanding help because it's a high priority issue for YOUR customers.

xkcd 743 moment

A tool with fewer features that is harder to use is by definition an inferior tool.

That's only your opinion, not an objective truth, and I only partially agree with it. Having the most features is not as important as having just the right set of features, and there are anti-features to consider as well. Feature creep can actually impact the usability of a tool, so these two criteria are sometimes in contradiction.

Ease of use is subjective and depends on the user, because users' needs, ability, tastes, and concerns differ. Of course, I don't think anyone deliberately chooses a tool because it is hard to use.

I don't agree that freeness is purely an ideological concern. I don't think a tool that works against me, or imposes arbitrary restrictions on me is a good tool by any measure. A good tool doesn't enshittify, or spy on its user, or refuse to work for arbitrary reasons. If a tool doesn't work and you are legally not allowed to fix it (as in the printer which inspired the movement in the 1980s), it's not a good tool. If a tool punishes you for something you didn't even do (as BitKeeper did to the Linux developers) it's not a good tool, even if it has the right features.

I don't tell you that your opinion is wrong, only that I don't agree with it. We are told our concerns are invalid and don't matter.

This is proprietary software even if it's been put in a git repo (presumably without the consent of the rightsholder) and run offline.

As has been pointed out in this thread, someone already got hit with a DMCA takedown for this.

I don't understand why we spend so much time praising proprietary software in these communities.

As to your question, I have a separate Windows machine for gaming, but that's it. I keep one foot in the free world and one in the proprietary. As for productivity tools I can't think of a proprietary tool I "can't quit" or that I would pick in favor of a free tool.

Fans of proprietary software have this weird belief that free software users choose inferior tools for purist or idealist reasons. This is offensively ignorant. No one chooses bad tools on purpose; we just consider freedom to be part of the criteria of a good tool.

They do say that

They will be using a different repository with a different license for some of its new features

"different license" suggests to me it might be a proprietary/fauxpen source licene, since this is explicitly being done to punish a fork.