It is for sure time to rethink copyright. And it was time also in the years long before this. But now again three major music-labels go with a lawsuite towards the hosting for youtube-dl named Uberspace (https://uberspace.de/). Besides that youtube-dl has only mail-servers there: The three labels are Sony Entertainment, Warner Music Group and Universal Music. Before going mad about this please rethink your reaction and words. And that's the reasoning why I have started this posting with the sentence about copyright and also included patents for sure. Short named: They are mostly used to have just some power about others. Software is not only protected, in many cases it is in cell locked up and thrown away whenever there is no further interest for. For sure there has to be something people can live with, that is not the question. But again this is a good example how companies don't understand values like ethics and moral. Not understand what freedom should be and also free culture with information.

That's also the point why "free as in freedom" fails at this concurrent point: Too many people fail to see the altruistic nature of free, libre software. Maybe started once that way, but there are enough examples where first project are bought and namerights given away, after that the project turns slowly more into some direction like "open-source" with a growing chance to be completely converted into unfree. And then what? We cannot integrate snort because the rules are not free for example. A good project once, turned into the opposite. You want something? Pay for it. That's the basic ruleset of capitalism. But it is done in every region, also information or culture in general. What now? Do we need a "revolution"? Especially here to remember: Please be careful about words and their power. We need to rethink, we need to show what is okay and what is not.

And this is for sure not okay, in any way. It is time to think about what a "copyrigh" means. What "name-rights" should mean. Remember? Rust is one example from another region: You try to modify it? Remove unfree parts? Not possible because of the licensing. Therefore it is not free, libre software in the basic definition. Clear statemens are needed and this is a clear statement again: Pay for everything, don't ask questions and please throw away thoughts about a free culture. But altruism should be made worthy, and work for altruistic projects like Hyperbola, Parabola or Dragora should be also recognized. It is about everyone to do something about that. And especially again the question on how long you think it is possible to go around unfree services and trying to use them without following their rulesets - that includes also the rulesets of companies mentioned? It is for sure not giving up, when stated: Leave them alone as often as possible. Better to even leave also alternative like Peertube alone. Go for own thoughts, stay focussed and stay clear for principles and values. So taking last but not least following into: I have written clear criticism towards the nature of Copyright and the capitalism without using insults or slur-wordings. It is not needed and only leave a bitter taste. Even though it goes away from the original centre of criticism. Capitalism is nothing good and we need more visions for a better global community where every being has a good living. Sounds utopian for sure, but starting now could end in a distant better future where we would overcome greed and search for power, misusing positions and more.

No, exactly the opposite: You have named the correct arguments. I have just mentioned that it is not helpful to use smear-words (there are enough examples out). Just to use real and normal arguments, nothing more and nothing less. You just seem to have not understood: Using smear-words, slurs and insults are immediately used against the idealistic position. Besides: It is not neutrality, it is just the way to get people understanding the problems. You will otherwise create a complete different situation and motivation. You see it at the reaction of some BSD-people. To quote a reaction I have seen more than once:

You can see especially there a problem: First discussing so much about Windows, Microsoft had done even commercials going themselves against GNU/Linux and free software in general (so I add this to your argument) and now they "love open-source". We have reached especially nothing with slurs and more. And we won't reach out for people: So we better name clear arguments when asked and stay true for clear values. And the named pragmatism of the BSD-area has already given the point Microsoft is using. Wrong for sure, but again: Marketing and illusions. The idealistic approach is something not that deep within from my experience and I have learned from some people using BSD having no problem with unfree software - to add this does not mean I can speak for ALL, just two or three I had learned they think that way back some years ago. But here is the point: Clear naming, clear reasoning.

It is wrong to think using free, libre software make YOU something better and we have enough people thinking that way. It is correct that using free, libre software is good and way better for sure for ALL - seeing the difference. But it should be a right for everyone and also including the duty to understand more from your own system. Otherwise we have the same problem around we have now: More and more people turn only towards pragmatism and forget about idealism. And then the systems owns them, not the opposite. Then systems have not only a toolset-character or something idealistic. Then systems are essential for everything and being absolutely intransparent and nobody has interest to do it other way, even GNU/Linux is turning into that direction because of the wrong focus I have named: People are only playing with their imagined, digital alter-ego, thinking about themselves as so bad cool "hackers" instead of doing that and within they go for others, making fun out of them. First side because they are not that deep into understanding, second side because it is part of the darkest side of us, going in groups and "fighting" each other. But tribal reactions don't help and within they can be also used for more bad as we can see: The marketing now Microsoft is using for example or having talks directly in front of people at Microsoft from FSF-associates. But illusions are keeping people way more, while their knowledge is not used for education and only for own purposes, the mentioned ego. As Charlie Chaplin noted once:

It is all connected. That's all, my dear sagaracharya!
But thanks for asking indirect, so I had a chance to redefine that a bit more. And please do it again everytime, if something is not clear. Ah and to add: I'm not neutral, cannot be and will not be. I'm just for arguments, no insults or slur-phrases. They just bring more problems in and let us forget being focused, mainly playing the ball and the arguments. Do I like "Windows"? For sure not. But stating that from a technical perspective WHY I don't like it, is way more helping than insults or slur-phrases. So I understand your reaction for sure, but as noted at the beginning now: It is meant as opposite, there you can be absolutely sure. I hope that clears up and if not: I'm for sure interested in more details, besides to add ... Windows is more or less installed on the most computer-systems named as all-day-usage desktop-machines. But that does not make any kind of difference in the end as Linux (without GNU) is also installed even on more devices counting in Android. Those arguments I have named last now are not very concrete, just giving in some major parts, but not the details. Besides the question, perhaps for a next posting if others are interested: Android is "Linux" and therefore comparable to "GNU/Linux" or even libre and free? Well, I'd like to give in some doubts about that, dear readers.

That would be great for sure. But just to note also: I was even attacked back some years ago in a forum for stating that "free software should be a generic human right, as for also free information and culture". And to note: That is my reasoning until today and will stay that way. But that is the demonstration on how even clear reasoning is even thrown aside from whatever motivation - it was a gaming-forum to note. But well? Let's work onto even utopian ideas, idealism is not bad. Just not to loose the connection to the concurrent state, so we can work onto getting forward. As for sure to repeat: Free, libre software SHOULD BE a human right. Accessing it from every part and on every system, not closing more information. Getting them free, to understand. And yes: People have to understand their system.

A good example is the question if driver-problems on an unfree system can be looked and researched. Just the same as looking for logs under GNU/Linux-libre. Hint: Not that kind of possible!

There is a right to know everything from the system you are using, but it is also the personal duty to be informed better. Free software without knowledge sounds nice, but the ending is the same desaster from another perspective. And others can state anything, as long as it is under a free license you get even bloated frameworks and no possibility to review for problems or security-issues.

Thanks for sharing, having a look.
Indeed unfree and a good demonstration about concurrent problems back within hardware. The problem itself gotten even worse today.

To underline what we should never accept: On-going and growing complexity. Not done intended, but also a big problem to arise. Free software with so many dependencies keeps on growing to a point when only the longest members know what is deep within. To call this "free" sounds like a bad joke and is the opposite for being believable.

Ignorance admires complexity, while simplicity should be even more relevant to understand digital spheres and keeping the life itself complex and colourful for all beings.

Progress only for the course to have it instead to make all better to be understood, make it easier for people to attend and work with, is nothing we can build on top of. Programs and hardware being that much on the rise now cannot be called tools any longer. They are own problems, with own spheres and caused errors for privacy, security and learning. People gave up onto this, many long ago and just stay being "users" instead to emancipate being more and can handle their data. Trust is a nice concept, but it is just too easy to be broken. Built on top of trust? Sure thing, but also built on more: You need the complete source-code, at best for all. You need to be able to modify the machine running the system at any time: It is your way and decision. Not to be able to do that and calling for example mobile devices with phone capabilities to be "free" is not correct. Many of them are not even near to be like that, in any way. They are a dangerous harm for the climate and environment, for data and privacy. And to mitigate some bad concepts within you have to accept weird and toxic ways, not even near to be called a compromise.

If having the choice to implement something with wrong and complex concepts or leaving it for the better while accepting others never to like that, I think we should accept not implementing interfaces for Bluetooth for example. Insecure and nevertheless useless in the end, adding even more problems instead solving them. Yes, this sounds not like a so-called "modern system", but what makes the wording "modern" in relation to simplicity and especially security? It is a free system, if there is to interest to experience something, everyone is free to implement more and add it for the own system, also to add them into the forum for others to attend. But Hyperbola should make a difference to stay away from harmful interfaces and technologies.

No offense taken and I hope the same for you as I don't want to be harsh in any way. But yeah: Everyone has the right to ask and gets a clear statement about what we as team are doing. Because there are two major principles:

1. We are ALL team here and therefore ONE community. There is nothing less to be defined!
2. Clear transparency is base for the communication.

For being believable there is no other way for Hyperbola also following the social contract and therefore need to play the ball. For sure our UXP-applications need a clear further roadmap being made safe or we talk as teamed community about other possibilities to bring simplicity central: Easy to handle, but in the outcome also powerful.

Imagine a world without free culture and free information: What do you think this world will look alike? A world where not all people have the right for information, where information is only based onto "interests". A world where capitalistic interests decide when a being should know more and what exactly in a point. Everything else? Not needed. In this world we are heading towards dystopian visions explained in books like Brave New World, where progression is not made for all people and just to have more consume. And a point where beings are divided in classes. Yes, this is a harsh vision, inhumane and disgusting. Another warning from another point of view, same as for 1984. But we are now here to come for thoughts, doing correct conclusions out that. Do we need to "fight" some called "evil force"? Please think clearly: This is a faulty perspective. We have to look exactly onto all parts, otherwise we can be guided fast into a false conclusion. So some thoughts:

Do we really need to go even deeper into the worldwide "network"? We have enough proof that information can be misused and we have so much to do with identifying lies and truths even now. Do we really need more of that? Our life depending on the wire and onto progress at all cost? Updates at all costs? Imagine this: The more dependencies into a software, the more problems can be the result. So I could state here and now that even the stated point about many parts of the ecosystem of GNU/Linux are build on top of illusions: Lightweight? Stable? Secure? And why do we think that "rolling release", always "up-to-date" is helping? Helping for what? Also many packages are getting even more dependencies and projects like Hyperbola more problems to remove or resolve them. We should not add those dependencies completely without questioning, without having doubts. That's not helping anyone. Nevertheless when we do that we build on top of "interests". We help others to gain influence.

So who can state that Gnome will be forever oriented on values like freedom and outright help, when corporate interests heading into? Same for KDE and others providing some essential libraries. The warnings from mentioned literature was not completely meant for a "big fight" in the first place. It is meant for self-reflection, about being outright critical about ignorance. Because there is the point: Ignorance is destroying the reflection directly. So when we would enter any kind of dystopian vision getting reality ... we can only address ourselves. There is no one else responsible! The ignorance of society is making it possible to have suffering disappearing (while it is for sure existant), to remove facts and science, just heading towards fast solutions. But those fast solutions (progression at all cost is also one) don't solve anything. Being believable is meant also being steady for principles and values. Empathy and solidarity are ultimate values, but based on facts and science, based on warm-hearted thoughts and clear stand for democratic inclusion for all. Remember this: Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. The pandemic situation has not vanished, the suffering throughout climate has not ended and war is there on a daily base, same for harassment, hatred and discrimination. The trickery is to make you ignore it. The question is: You want all of this? Better to take the path of democratic solutions and empathy instead of egoism and more ignorance.

Wow, fedora really is going in the toliet then...

Sometime after 2012, when I got into linux, I picked fedora as my first distro...

I never would have guessed they would discontinue legacy bios support...

That is beyond stupid, for many reasons,  particularly, not everyone uses uefi...

besides, UEFI should stand for:

Underworld Endangering Foolish Interface

Side note though,

Doesn't legacy bios removal make coreboot support, harder?

If that's the case, then the people in charge are many times more foolish than I thought...

I usually consider slurs to be highly offensive statements that are meant to demonize people of different ethnicities, sexual preferences or beliefs of otherworldly ideals or supernatural type things...

That all being said, I would agree normally, but if you read that thread long enough, you see that "person"

This is the lightest way I can put it, but yeah...

Anyways, systemd's creator seems to lash out against anyone who has even the mildest of criticisms of his creation.

If the redhat devs who created stuff like that were less crass and less devoted to ideals that border on the idea of being as bad as Google's, Apple's or Microsoft's...

Then, well...

I would still have trouble keeping my mouth shut in some ways probably...

The others try to attack more from outside, but redhat likes to do so from within more.

I doubt the person I mentioned above is the only one who is that toxic at redhat.

So when others say  I should not demonize him so to speak, they are somewhat right.

The corporation redhat itself is toxic, so yes they are right in one sense, but in another sense, they leave a lot out that is more important to the actual issue.

While they are not nearly as toxic as the other three corporations I mentioned, they are easily many times more sneaky at shoving crap into an otherwise good system.

Not saying they the best, clarifying, of course I mean the system known as, GNU/Linux  aka...  would be many times better without so much corporate crap being added.

So yeah, anything that is proprietary, or is designed by people who want to EEGFC

Aka the new threat of:

Embrace
Extend
Gain Full Control

Should be ignored and treated as worthless especially by people who are so manipulative in getting what they want and have nothing great to give in return.

I believe that was Redhat's goal, also, if it wasn't now, it would most definitely be now due to IBM taking possession of them.

I still think even then, it wouldn't be ideal, but it wouldn't be the mess it is now.

Just my two cents, take it for what it is worth, but if nothing else, one thing is true, shame doesn't make people do better, it makes them do worse.

That being said, if they don't intend to do better, well...

There is no point even bothering, to do anything else, it seems...

meh...

Yeah he does get criticized alot, that is true, but if you look at his rebuttals, they are kind of immature...

Basically, its a game of fight fire with gasoline over and over again...

That being said, corporate culture probably is in general the issue if that's what you mean.

I should add:

this is the giant problem with humanity as a whole

Basically, presentation of said ideals should rarely matter at all, with regard to technology, in particular, as long as the best idea wins out.

This is clearly not how things work 95% of the time though, it really makes me feel sad, ya know?

Btw, this below I mentioned:

"So yeah, anything that is proprietary, or is designed by people who want to EEGFC
Aka the new threat of:
Embrace
Extend
Gain Full Control"

It might have more truth then even I first thought, given that those 4 corporations I mentioned, as well as others, are finding ways to infect the ideals of open source and libre software at the same time.

Of course, open source doesn't care about freedom persay, but if they intend to make it free from proprietary software, it is also libre.

Also, here's another ironic twist, OpenBSD is more "libre" than some GNU/Linux distros...

But yeah, I will just add by saying, I am pretty sure some out there have tried to convey the issues they see with software like dbus, pulseaudio, systemd, etc... without hostility.

Even if other people flame you over stuff, its usually bad to ignore them completely and at least evaluate some of what they say before throwing it out, for a while.

If he did that for at least half of the critcisms, its possible, people wouldn't be so irritated with him and people who do similar projects.

Long story short,  I suppose I will say, nothing is all shadow or all sunlight.

His ideas could have merit, there are some  problems though,

its neverending the features he keeps adding thus creating bloat and security nightmares, complex code...

I think it would make more sense to just make new modules for the new stuff he wants, without making them mandatory like I mention below:

And of course, the backwards compatibility breaking situation and then there are some who are deceptive and try to get people to choose his software to make his software the default.  And finally,  last but not least, any crticisms, even if they have validity, he throws out if he hates the presenation.
Again though, I doubt its only him, this could very well be more than just a redhat problem like you said though. You do have a point there.

I recall some university teacher saying he was working for microsoft, but he kept finding too many bugs, so they fired him.

So yes, I do have egg on my face for forgetting that..

Meh, I been on here too much, lately...

That being said, whether you consider it convenience or pragmatism, the entire situation spells infection to me.

Btw, quality does indeed matter more, but as for, unused, that might not be the right word indeed....

What do you think about sabotaged?

Either way, the situation is intense enough, without feeling like I am getting hit on the head with your opinions, sigh...

I shouldve probably stayed out of this thread....

When I read your comments, its hard not to want to reply a specific way regarding this kind of material.

...

EDIT:

It doesn't need to be said, but technology cannot fix anything, but it goes further, without constant vigiliance, like you said, there is no way anything will ever remain stable.

There is a reason, the expression, "I am only human"

Came to be...

its because we will always be imperfect till the day we die

OpenBSD has one thing better than the GNU/Linux world though, they are extremely passionate about security/privacy/

Capitalism is indeed a vulgar thing.

Communism is also vulgar, if you consider it to be socialism to the insane level.

Socialism? I think is fine as long as it doesn't go the insane level.

I begin to wonder, if OpenBSD was right about permissive software being a better road to follow...

Only because,  if people are tricky enough, they will find ways to manipulate the licenses, just like gpl2 has been, many times over.

Either way... try to tone it down, it just has this effect on people like me or others, where it makes us angry to where we say stuff, that will probably upset you.

Even if that isn't our intention...

My point being, what can I even say without you getting annoyed with me in this thread?

...
...
...