Mama told me not to come.
She said, that ain’t the way to have fun.
And even then, most games are available on multiple platforms, for similar prices. So you can get the same game from Steam, GOG, or EGS in many cases, plus all of the stores that sell Steam keys (and Steam probably doesn’t get a cut of those sales).
I think there could be more to it. Louis Rossmann had personal issues with the lead dev there a year or two ago due to how they interact in their forum, and I think he had some great reasons to be concerned. Since then the lead dev has stepped away as project lead, but I doubt the bad blood is completely gone.
I think it’s a bit suspicious that they don’t mention what feature(s) FUTO wanted. Given their interaction with other projects, I’m guessing they wanted a “supporter” badge for people who have bought the software (no change in functionality other than the badge). I’m guessing also that due to their interaction with Rossmann, they’re uninterested in clarifying, esp. if it would put FUTO in a better light if they did.
Then again, maybe FUTO is a bunch of scumbags. It just seems the slant against them is so much stronger than the actual negative impact from a handful of repos having source-available licenses instead of FOSS licenses.
My read is that FUTO as a software movement is totally fine, it does what it claims on the tin. The people behind FUTO are a different story, and the main person bankrolling it seems to have friends with odd views (I think they’re blown out of proportion, but they’re still concerning).
You’ll never find a perfect movement. Here’s what FUTO seems to prioritize:
That sounds pretty good to me! I’d prefer it to be FOSS, but allowing me to distribute modifications for non-commercial use is probably good enough for most things.
I probably disagree with their founder politically, and I’d run FUTO differently, but I think their software is good and I could maintain it myself if needed, and at the end of the day, that’s what matters to me.
FUTO doesn’t seem interested in getting involved in politics, they’re merely musing philosophically, and their products aren’t profitable, so it doesn’t really matter to me what their political positions are.
We need two things:
They should happen in that order, and ideally copyright would only be awarded to individuals (or perhaps specifically named lists of individuals, with some reasonable cap), not corporations. The current system is absolutely bonkers.
The main blocker is MFA. I can technically work around Google Authenticator (I use Aegis currently) because I can run it on my laptop, but I also need Okta verify (work VPN), Symantec VIP (bank), and the Steam app.
And some other very nice to haves:
I can find workaround for the rest.
That said, wouldn’t it just be easier to uninstall the apps that cause distractions?
Eh, I disagree. Slavery being banned is obviously a good thing, but that’s because it’s immoral to own someone else, so it’s essentially just kidnapping. Gambling, on the other hand, shouldn’t be banned for the simple reason that consenting adults should be able to do it if they choose.
Basically, I believe there are two types of rights:
I believe nobody should gamble because it’s a poor financial decision and very addictive (and I choose to avoid gambling), but I also believe you should be allowed to gamble, and the government should ensure that companies that provide gambling services do so fairly (i.e. advertisements about win-rates and whatnot are accurate).
So yes, if gambling wasn’t allowed, people w/ addictions would be better off, but those who aren’t at risk of gambling addiction would be harmed due to restrictions on their freedom. So the question is, do we want government to protect us from ourselves, or merely provide a safety net for when we screw up? I’m absolutely in the latter camp, and I think we should use taxes to fund recovery programs for addictive behaviors in lieu of banning them. In general, I think a tax is way more rights-respecting than a ban.
Eh, not revisionist, just overly simplified. Prohibition massively increased their power and relevance.
Yup, and that’s how the US got the Mafia. We banned alcohol, but people wanted to drink, so the Mafia made that happen.
All a ban does is hurt law abiding citizens and businesses.
Yup, I want “unobtrusive, lightweight, compatible, and secure.” Basically, the best case for an OS is that I don’t notice it.
That makes no sense, surely everyone has invested in green energy through workplace retirement plans, no?
I’ve thought about this idea for my own project, and my best solution is to have a network of trust where people rely on curation from their peers and thus only see the content their peers have approved.
The main benefit is also the main downside: content you disagree with is still there, you just don’t see it. That means there could absolutely be pockets of CSAM and other content on the network, but your average user wouldn’t have that on their system since they only store curated content.
I’m not sure how I feel about that, but I think it’s the best you can do without centralized moderation.
I care a lot about rendering engine diversity, and Firefox is the largest non-chromium browser, so I use it. It’s fast enough for me, and my handful of extensions gives me what I need.
I don’t like Mozilla either, but here are my priorities in a web browser:
Firefox ticks all of them, and my issues with Mozilla as an org don’t really come into play. I use a fork on my phone, but I use Firefox on my laptop and desktop because I trust the binaries coming from my Linux distribution maintainers (part of 4).
What does that have to do with the browser? Last I checked, browsers aren’t transphobic.
You do you, but I personally refuse to make product choices based on the person who makes it. Brave is the least bad chromium browser, so I use it as a backup to my main Gecko-based browser. I’m not a fan of Mozilla either, but that’s irrelevant since I pick my software based on what it does, not based on the management of the company that builds it.
Sure, but those will usually be pieces of an app on the same host, not whole apps. Like for an inventory management app, you might have the auth server and its database on one host, the CRUD app and its database on another, and the report server, its database, and a replica of the CRUD db on another. And I use the term “host” broadly enough to include VMs on the same physical hardware. And these hosts will have restricted communication between each other.
At least, that’s how I’ve seen it done.
Self-hosters will generally run multiple full apps on one host. It’s a different setup.
You shouldn’t have any user home for your services, you shouldn’t even allow them to login at all. They should only have group access to resources they need, and containers should restrict what directories they have access to.
Companies don’t typically host multiple containers on the same host. So having a different user for them is less important than securing the connection between machines, since a given biat isn’t particularly interesting. Attackers will still try to break out, so they have a backup.
As a self-hoster, you typically do the opposite. You run multiple services on the same host, and the internal network isn’t particularly secure. So you should be focusing more on mitigating issues, and having each service run as an unprivileged user is one fairly easy way to do that.
You can run it rootful, then it behaves just like Docker.
That’s a distinction without a difference. If things are consistently out of stock, they’re not actually selling them.
If an AI can effectively do your coursework, why wouldn’t AI replace you in the industry?