Solar Bear

  • 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • I don’t follow. We regularly refer to polio as being “eradicated”, even though there have still been documented (but exceptionally rare) cases of polio transmission even in western countries over the last couple decades. That actually sounds like a perfectly apt comparison for the goals of prison abolition, just not in the way you intended.


  • Solar Bear@slrpnk.nettoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlOn prison abolition
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    In short, prison abolition isn’t about abolishing prisons?

    Bad name choice in my opinion, as it immediately makes me think: what a dumb idea.

    This is kind of like saying being anti-war is a dumb idea because there will surely always be wars fought in defense. Being anti-war isn’t necessarily being an absolute pacifist. It’s about opposing war and striving towards a future where war is a relic of the past. Everybody understands this, but struggles to apply the same logic to other topics.

    Striving for intentionally utopian and impossible ideals is a great idea, actually, as long as you recognize it for what it is. I’m a prison abolitionist. Ultimately what I strive for is a society that doesn’t need prisons. I don’t know if total prison abolition is possible, but worst case scenario, we get as close as possible. What’s so bad about that?

    Similarly, I’m a communist, in the classical anarchist sense: abolition of state, class, and money. Are these things possible? Maybe not. In fact, probably not, at least not in any timeframe where humanity will be recognizable to us, as it would require true peace between all people and absolute post-scarcity in every way available to everyone. But worse case scenario, we get as close as possible.

    Ultimately, adopting a utopian ideal is a recognition that the struggle to do better never ends. We’re never “done”. There’s no end of history. Even if we do somehow achieve it, it must be maintained.









  • Solar Bear@slrpnk.nettoLinux@lemmy.mlThoughts on this?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    10 months ago

    it’s probably time to come to terms with the fact that better alternatives would have arisen had anyone thought they could truly manage it.

    This is the most important takeaway. There’s a lot of people whining about Wayland, but Wayland devs are currently the only people actually willing to put in the work. Nobody wants to work on X and nobody wants to make an alternative to Wayland, so why do we keep wasting time on this topic?





  • Solar Bear@slrpnk.nettoLinux@lemmy.mlCanonical changes the license of LXD to AGPL
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The full details are complex but I’ll give you the basic gist. The original GPL licenses essentially say that if you give somebody the compiled binary, they are legally entitled to have the source code as well, along with the rights to modify and redistribute it so long as they too follow the same rules. It creates a system where code flows down freely like water.

    However, this doesn’t apply if you don’t give them the binary. For example, taking an open source GPL-licensed project and running it on a server instead. The GPL doesn’t apply, so you can modify it and do whatever, and you aren’t required to share the source code if other people access it because that’s not specified in the GPL.

    The AGPL was created to address this. It adds a stipulation that if you give people access to the software on a remote system, they are still entitled to the source code and all the same rights to modify and redistribute it. Code now flows freely again, and all is well.

    The only “issue” is that the GPL/AGPL are only one-way compatible with the Apache/MIT/BSD/etc licenses. These licenses put minimal requirements on code sharing, so it’s completely fine to add their code to GPL projects. But themselves, they aren’t up to GPL requirements, so GPL code can’t be added to Apache projects.


  • Most Snaps have apt or Flatpak alternatives.

    I’m simply not going to support a distro that creates a proprietary service and ships it as the default source of software. I will support and use distros that open source their code so that everyone can benefit from it. Whether workarounds or alternatives exist is unimportant, my prime issue with Ubuntu and Canonical is with their principles, not Ubuntu’s quality as a product to be consumed by me.


  • Look, I’m usually first in line to shit on Canonical, but I can’t get mad at them adopting AGPL. This is objectively the best license for server software. Incus should also switch to AGPL for all Canonical code, and seek to have contributors license their code as AGPL as well.

    I will however point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of it, because the Snap server is still proprietary after all of this time. If this is their “standard for server-side code” then apply it to Snaps or quit lying to us.



  • It’s far better than it used to be. They didn’t get the reputation for no reason. There were lots of Nvidia-specific bugs that have been slowly sorted out over the years. I’m told Wayland is even in a roughly usable state now. But it takes a lot of time to regain the lost trust. Let’s see how long it takes them to support HDR, and what that support looks like.