Oh okay: Just in case keep ignoring that Debian has a proposal for going on with systemd, to be found here. A democratic choice is one good thing in general, but keep on to choose not to have any further choice as it is within systemd stays the same nonsense and resulting within irreversible damage for GNU/Linux in a whole. But what I'm talking about? Linux itself seems to be no longer about choice. And with the upcoming conflict for the sovereignty of interpretation what "freedom" is really about - remember that "open-source" has also major problems with social and ethic concepts of "free, libre software" - there is more: Upcoming hatred and meritocracy, prejudices and pigeonhole thinking are with this. From time to time it is really hard to think even in some ways positive for us humans as "we" seem not being able to live in peace together and some of us are just searching for "power and greed" instead asking questions and being in reflection throughout discussions. But hey, nationalism and identity on a social level, standardization and buzzwords on a technical level seem just more important than a future in peace, freedom, dignity and a colourful world for all beings included on all levels. You want to stop? Stop for yourself first in search for this and keep on with freedom of choice.

Interesting question about QubesOS and I'm also in search for more regarding Kali Linux. The major problem with systemd is the complete restructuring of POSIX-standards and they driven far away until now, including even more components. As I've said earlier here in the thread: No further problem with the idea having more possibilities built into the INIT and service-management, but having ALL built just one big component is a growing problem. systemd is just no longer about INIT and as getting even larger the vision gets even more far away: Why do I need for example homed? I've tried to imagine scenarios where I could need such things and I've failed with doing this as every computer-system I've installed until today is unique and talking about server-systems I don't need to exchange HOME-directories instead just copy configurations premade some time ago by myself - same with desktop-systems and clients.

The idea of systemd seems to be more about trying to copy known paradigms from others (Microsoft especially): You have therefore one process to "rule them all" (sorry, Mr. Tolkien: I've grabbed this for now and yes, I dare doing this again). Nice try, bad try at all: Single point of failure incoming first and afterwards enough more as you have furthermore no logfiles in readable format, instead just binary crap. It stays the enforced "standardization" as enough podcasts even noted. But what mocks me up most: Why do the people don't start with alternatives like here? There are enough examples and systemd is just the biggest one. Followed up: PulseAudio, Network-Manager and D-Bus as definition of bloatware, full with dependencies making the system itself not really better - yes, I wait until today for someone explaining me why I should jump up for having my soundserver being connected from remote (some sarcasm sideways as I had enough discussions about that in the past).

Regarding QubesOS: From what I've read so far the distribution is using some special container-concept for applications. When having systemd reduced so far for being service-manager and INIT, it could work, but I have not tried that myself as there are also requirements for the hardware. But after all: I'm not that kind of sure as QubesOS is claiming to trust therefore Fedora, not for all but enough having the name of this distribution into this as I have no further trust into Red Hat as I call them responsible for some of the bloatware applications and frameworks I've named earlier in this posting. And we have to face the realitiy as the pragmatism is wide more relevant as real freedom. Linus Torvalds himself with the Linux-Foundation is responsible for the major buyout for having no further problems with companies being part of "freedom". For now "Linux" is a trademark (bad joke, isn't it?) from Linus Torvalds, just in case to "protect" Linux. What will happen if this trademark is sold? And what next? I think some participants within the global community and especially the FSF doesn't think further: Another fast happened and created hard fork? What about people have their problems with Linux-libre for example? And removing firmware-blobs is one thing, but another developing new features and bugfixing. The FSF is just doing some propaganda-imagery for now, stating they help the community. No, they don't help: They just shortening information and facts, which is dangerous. And when problems occur we'll hear nothing further as the GNU-projects are respsonsible? Yeah, FSF and FSFE: You both failed and fail further. Support Hurd and support projects like Hyperbola, if you really want free, libre software. Speak about that and not about this pragmatism, some forking for Android declaring the freedom for mobile devices, which cannot be freed. Yes, some information are not good for getting "bigger" but this is healthier instead having this false imagery for now as "we" could have an ecosystem consisting of really free hard- and software This is a social, ethical, political and technical movement: Respecting each component instead having "some" solution. Gnome is one evidence this will fail otherwise, there are much more.

Anti-social networks are most the same: Reducing the spectrum of information to some closed filter- and information-bubble. This is a reasonable danger for engagement regarding democracy in general and in special also for taking more influence on people, directing them into directions. This was understood by the so-called "social influencer"-fraction and is used in so many areas. Instead everything is reduced: So I could ask ... is systemd itself a danger? The answer would be from me: No, but the mass concentrating only on this could be a risk for vendor lock-in.

That's one topic out of the postings here in the thread. Another one is the double-standard our modern societies seem to follow: On the one side we want more freedom, on the other side, we are not willing for a change and just reduce everything on a scale of black and white. Is it really radicale having clear principles against capitalism as this system given proof of being against everything except "progress" and "growth"? And no: There is no elite, no further dark plan. This misbelief just keep demagogues running all the time, feeding them with such kind of smear arguments is not really helpful and is ruining the colourful world being possible. Companies run for their own interests, that's all the magic behind. Making "our" own thing besides that would be a good answer instead an adoption of offered projects like Mono: The question here is ... what's the price for taking? Same with Java and also Rust. Yes, this make distributions like Hyperbola to some kind of "outsider" but better to be that instead running with a false dream, staying only that. There are so many good thoughts and it running them all onto the next wall is very bad. But this is an individual decision, not done from some dark, sinister plan or something else. And the FSF has also enough decisions to take: Just do it, stop taking donations from doubtful sources for example. Make more out of Hurd. Yes, not to get into the decisions of the projects itself is a good thing. But is it really good to wait? For what? Vanishing bloatware? Won't happen. Solution for Hurd on their own ways? Well, the same as before: Won't happen without support. And what about criticism towards missing diversity within the software-landscape itself? Ignoring this won't help running for freedom. Besides that we are running out of freedom just while I'm writing these lines. You can use systemd, but keep on with all the others: s6, shepherd, runit, openrc and many more.

My freedom is not more valuable, but don't get stuck into a rabbit-hole some algorithms guide you in. That's one of the real problems as you won't get out of it and step more further into those misbeliefs, into being manipulated and even the developers of those algorithms have not evil masterplan behind. All with good intentions first and we have time to get out of it, but time is not endless and companies don't understand values like ethics or moral. Reducing freedoms of others by upscaling your own? That's one major point. Is it about more a feeling or about facts? This is upon you reading this here as it is mine to question and to be questioned. Please stay critical, dear reader - everytime.

The next point is about climate and global warming. I hear the upcoming questions: What does this have to do with "free, libre software and culture"? And what with "software" in general? Got you: Question yourself.

Why do you change your concurrent hardware?
Because of the software no longer supporting the platform or being to slow in the performance.

And we have to change this. This is not an  optional point, this is a must. And is it that much of a loss not watching Netflix all-time, searching for local possibilities, offline? Is it a loss to keep your hardware for longer time, perhaps even more than ten years? And "progress" is nice, but what is the price of this? Mining bitcoins with high energy consumption? Big graphics can be scaled down with not a big loss of the quality, there were formats created back in the early days of the global network, you know them? Support longer hardware-platforms instead searching for the next big hit: Wreck 32bit for what reasoning? Because you can do more with 64bit? Yeah, of course but is this a reasoning to be excessively in the use of hardware-resources? Let's take some example from the so-called "modern" internet: 3D-realtime animations, CSS-tricks with transparency and pictures at any cost and more. Some websites and so-called web-appliances doesn't even run on older browsers because just of those things: Lack of support for JavaScript and CSS. And the system is thrown away because websites run slowly - not a reasoning from me as I've heard it already from others. Hardware is thrown away because websites run not as fast as possible, mobile devices included.

And that is not acceptable. That's also a reasoning why "free markets" for example won't help here and "freedom" has also reasonable borders. But it is on all of us speaking about those borders. Remember? My freedom is not more valuable than yours and yours is the same in relation to others. There was once a time the wording green IT was used. Well? Where is it when graphicscards need their own power supply because their energy consumption grown that high? But okay: Do I understand that some want graphics more real than reality itself in their games preferred? No, I don't understand that and seeing the dilemma could be a first base for further discussions and being believable also as "free, libre software" has a better chance for insights and changes. See KDE 3 got a fork with the Trinity Desktop, there are desktop-environments with hight modification possibilities like IceWM or i3 for example (the complete listing is far more bigger). But there are also points to be solved: Why just be into centralized systems like Github? Does such a big node help really? Better concentrate on decentralized systems, running libre ones perhaps? And what about centralization itself and its energy consumption? And what about desktop-environments like Gnome 3 or KDE Plasma? Eye-candy perhaps. Also more in regards to the points I've scribbled here. And being clear: These are just scribbles for now! But I see no further point why modern computing have to be that much demanding in regards to resources. Ah, and it is not helpful asking on centralized or decentralized anti-social networks what to watch next in your online-media-library while being engaged for climate! Seems to be complicated as people think their "toys" go away when this is questioned. Don't you get it? You only rent those services, no difference between Steam, Netflix or Spotify here. The same as you have only some rights, the rest is "reserved" and not under your control.

About code of conduct: You think those are not helping and it is needed to speak out some truth? Okay, got the challenge. How about trying to discuss about different viewpoints instead doing harassment again some projects got in the past? Especially the kernel-development of Linux got a long list of harsh and insulting language, toxic to the roots itself. Ah, you think this is about YOUR freedom of speech? Okay, and what about the freedom of speech of the person you had insulted? How about the rights and dignity? Why not exactly trying to speak up?

You think a code of conduct is censorship? Think again: This situation resulted within the fact that there was exactly mobbing, sexism, racism and more. There you have one special point mentioned here as politics. Free, libre soft- and hardware should be about inclusion, not exclusion. So while you speak about this you should also respect this integral component at all. And what about meritocracy enough projects had or even have while I'm writing these lines here? Just because somebody seems to be absolute needed for one project or the core components does not make the person absolutely untouchable. Even more the phrase who is doing is always right couldn't be more showing an ugly face of major problems being unsolved until today within the global community of free software and culture. There are many options: Stop talking about "freedom of speech" while marginalizing people suffering even under harassment of society and being excluded from the majority or being literally hunted by hating persons / groups. You want freedom respected? Don't get it wrong as hatred is not a concrete point of view and prejudices cannot help to build further on top of this as the resulting "community" is just more of the known harassment. You think again code of conduct is the wrong way? Okay, give it a proof and stand by the side of marginalized beings, give them support. You don't want to do that? Okay, exactly then you give approval about your point being is not really based on real facts and instead about your own sightings and emotions as you had not to suffer under marginalization (good for you), but you want therefore others to stay into drawers they were put into before by society, just to be some kind of silent and endure more harassment? Democracy is just not a cheap phrase but more a high valuable right, which we have to defend every day again and that is done throughout reflections not just some articles or shoutings, not throughout insults or harsh wordings. This is done by using rational arguments and trying to understand the suffering, being empathic.

And exactly than there is no further need for such a ruleset as a meritocracy is just built on top of prejudices and authoritarian perspective. Everything else is just more of lip services. And I hope nobody has to suffer under the same harassment people had before and because of this different possible versions of a code of conduct were created. I hope also those are just needed for a short amount of time. In my idealistic view this could be some solution, but I'm also aware about the harsh reality where one hatred is just replaced by another one. But you cannot defend fire with fire here as giving people exactly their chance getting out of those drawers some majority and prejudices had put them into before.

Well, another problem is trying to reach a real inclusive community. What do you do with harassment? Either you accept participants within a community, who have done and will do again hassments against others leading to marginalized people being even more out of safe spaces and put into drawers, or you talk to each other and search for a solution. Yes, this solution can also end with an exclusion of people, who don't want to accept inclusion and respect for each other. Remembering therefore to the social contract:

And trying to defame others following clear principles is also one major problem these days because some just see their own freedom and not respect the one of others, as there is no further difference. False comparisons are more of the same smear wording we had in the past: People naming problems within projects and "free culture" generally are just handled like a bird fouling its own nest. That's disgusting and more about the all known paradigm using politics for the very own part named ignorance and arrogance! And yes: I have a concrete example from different websites again but I won't share it as this thread is not about sharing exclusive links, more about a discussion of perspectives and perhaps also a collection of possible tipps getting towards a real community caring about each other. Just the notes: Reading about comparisons to doctors don't swearing the "Hippocratic Oath" is very much about smear wordings. Where is the harm if you exclude oppressing and abusive behaviour? Exactly that: You make a point when positioning against it. And facing the fact that be excellent to each other does not help in those situations.

Believe me or not: I had it in the past also. Being attacked, excluded and insulted because of my sugar disease. That's is the pure definition of toxic, oppressive behaviour. And you won't solve anything by ignoring it, again and again!
Free software and free culture is about beings, so we have to deal with different perspectives and talk about them. But we should also draw a line about what is acceptable and what is not. Racism, sexism, ableism and many more for example are nothing more than systematic oppression and pure hatred! Being believable is including the position against systematic oppression also while we are talking about freedom of speech does not include being free of criticism and trying to marginalize the marginalized beings is even more of the same old, but really tragic story our history is full with. Help others to get out of drawers the majority had put them into, getting also more people to understand not to repeat such a behaviour. This won't solve everything but it is another step forward towards freedom and emancipation of everyone.

Let's talk about streaming and first things first: Being honest? I don't use any service at all for streaming movies or series. Why don't using them? Because they are nothing more than purest definition of DRM. Do you get the content outside to view it whenever or whereever you want? And there are even now productions being no longer available outside those services. It is the same way as some entertainment-software got far enough being only distributed digital on one single proprietary platform. Yes, perhaps they can get be free at all but this will be another way declared as illegal in many countries. Do you care about freedom, privacy and security? Think twice about using those services, whatever you call them: Netflix, Disney+ or anything else. What about the energy invested to stream those contents back to your device? And again: Being believable, people should also talk about "Green IT" and finding other ways. And think about preservation of those productions as most thoughts seem just being focussed on "today" and not "tomorrow". What then? Lost and forgotten for series, movies and some documentations?

Buzzword "social media" (or "networks") is nothing more than a big lie itself. Or do you have possibilities to really get in touch with more than 5 persons called as "followers" or "friends" at a time? There is no difference between open and proprietary, decentralized and centralized systems. You could call them as they are really anti-social as opposite. Information are so fast overcome by the next big "problem in the news" that there is no further time getting deeper into context. And yes: There are situations you better talk about, for example when people and participants declare racism, sexism, ableism and generalized hatred as "freedom of speech". Protecting democratic values is one thing, protecting marginalized beings another and also very important. But instead our global society don't even recognize the flaws and failures these days.

Standing outside is another problem as your own existance is "ignored" or people just talk "about" you. And we should be honest: Getting information is important but better to stay in touch with each other throughout forums like these here. As noted always again: I hope I just scribble down some dystopian vision and not the reality itself as I want being wrong with my wording and writing here. But when I read about people I had contact in the past throughout Diaspora for example writing today the same black and white pictures they wanted to destroy back in those days, tried to give others a vision about emancipation and autonomy, I have clear doubts. So today they write about "enemies", but what is this wording? An enemy is nothing more than absolute ultimate form to be "destroyed". This is pure agitation against emancipation and people are even more into harsh words in those anti-social networks and systems. After words the deeds?

So I'll take this moment and underline again: Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google and many others are not evil by intention. And there is no easy answer for the situation. But why not just ignoring them? Giving them any further platform won't help from my point of view, as it is the same making them to the some kind of "evil". There is many "evil" when we take this phrasing. But to overcome it is not done by some revolution, better to analyze the situation in concrete and this cannot be done from a single person or group. We need decentralized communication, we need time for doing all of this. But our time is running out the same time we stay in our nice little illusion capitalism is giving us. And when we are not "worthy" enough? Thrown out, ignored and marginalized. Who decides being "worthy"? Well, that's a question. And why should even an individual being on earth reduced to be "worthy" or "not worthy"? Even a better question and this rabbit hole is very deep and dark.

Tired of all the same as time goes by: For what? Enough so-called fighters and activists for "freedom and privacy" just mention the so-called "freedom of speech" again and again. But they give no further clue on where this freedom ends. In fact it seems just endless for themselves and as mentioned here in the thread already: Freedom of speech has got a clear defined end. Exactly when the freedom of others should be restricted, their dignity and essential rights taken away throughout this "freedom" - which is in fact the opposite. You know how to call this? It is the Third Position.

In fact we need something like the FSF, but more being clear without failures or unclear standing for principles. We just don't need big names within as some "leadership", more of questioning and discussion. But what am I writing down? It seems this burried under so much searching for "convenience". And first principle: It's just not only about YOUR freedom, it's just about the freedom for everyone and equal rights. You don't want to hear or read criticism? You want people being in drawers? Think again and please just leave the sphere of free, libre software collecting thoughts and try to reflect first. Afterwards try again! Standing against hate, standing against authority and against prejudices - not meaning tolerance for intolerance, you know?

I find it fascinating that someone could condemn an individual for
using a secure computer. I (probably) do not have anything to hide in
my residence, but I still prefer to keep the curtains drawn and doors
locked. I see no reason for a computer to be any different.

Thanks for the message: Reading through the related article on Wikipedia offers more technical insights and also mentions the relation between Facebook as the project itself is hosted on a repository from this company. But that's one major issue as this algorithm was and is developed under some really clear circumstances as much data should be compressed on the infrastructure of Facebook. Seems nice from them to share this? No it isn't as this is part of making dependencies and the false liberalism of "Open-Source" into "free, libre software".

Well okay: It is using a dual-licensing model: BSD License + GPLv2. But in fact we will find more of those moves in many projects these days. For example: Thunderbird. Looking here: https://blog.thunderbird.net/2020/01/th … -new-home/

Sharing a quote:

Exactly that: non-charitable donations ... meaning therefore not "donations" for the project to develop for everybody the same but more only of "some" interests of individuals and groups. Yeah, of course: It is always about interests. But why integrating so much things being so clearly away from ideals and making companies like Facebook even more "relevant"? Just because of the size of packages? And what "interests"? Making money from data collected throughout usage of Thunderbird? There are just more lies ahead! More about "being unbelievable".

Just as always the adaption is done from within the "open-source"-community and is a flavor for being made as some kind of "free, libre software". But when we look at the whole landscape it is questionable what is reached today. Being strict onto "free, libre projects" could be one first step as companies will never bring up more than their own interests. Pragmatic, toxic waste is left!

So, here we are again, folks. And we are talking again - as always - about being believable in regards to free, libre software. So is NPM to be trusted after the project was bought by Github, therefore originated towards Microsoft? Don't get me wrong: It is not only about that Microsoft has literally years after years showing up that they DON'T LIKE free, libre software and their "new strategy" is just more of the same. It is just about the money in general: So Github bought NPM, therefore also the complete JavaScript-ecosystem itself and Microsoft will show again that they can not be trusted. Perhaps the project itself will stay "free" for some time, but will take the same way Mono did once. As company it is all about the money within Microsoft even if there are people really being into "open-source" and "free, libre software". Such a big machinery can't be changed from the inside, it'll always stop you or your planning when it comes up on money and that's the motor the capitalism is driving through. Do we get this? Or are we just that corrupted? That's the major point: Being believable includes also being sticked onto clear principles and when somebody is coming with the big money the answer stays just NO, it has to be that way because otherwise nothing will be changed for good. And the same with all those projects being hosted on Github: Leave that place, the outcome won't be better. There are others like notabug.org or libregit.org!