namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
@brown121407@fosstodon.org I recommend videos/lectures by Alexander Stepanov. Very much a proponent of programming as scientific discipline and not just art form or hobby.
Warning: you would likely not be fond of the language he uses, but most of the time it's an irrelevant detail, rather than a focal point.
namark
boosted
I failed to design a CPU yesterday specifically suited to voice recognition, but today I'd like to explain how I'd (naively) design a general purpose CPU to address their current vulnerabilities.
Basically I'd add length & permissions data to every pointer (making them 128bits long), and store a bitmask indicating which bytes are pointers. Thereby moving more fine-grained security checks into the hardware.
This would break *some* C programs, but the damage should be minimal and worth it.
@alcinnz I know nothing about hardware design, and I don't understand the specifics of what you have described, but I like the notion. I think speculative execution and caching primitives (and maybe more complexities of CPU I don't know of) should have been exposed in the instruction set for software to use, opt in. I speculate that it was wholly implemented in hardware/firmware because the vendors were catering to proprietary software, that they could not guarantee(or require) to be recompiled for the new hardware design.
@cancel Ah I see. All that story was in context of justifying not upgrading to GPL v3. linux is still GPL 2 cause they can't get rid of GPL 2, cause even though outdated, it's still one mean and vicious battleship, you can't get rid of that easily.
Regarding what I use:
Well linux is still free software, even if it wasn't really intended to be :D
For what it's worth I use linux libre, on my main machine. If gnu hurd ever comes out I'll definitely move to it. But I'm generally not very good at system setup and configuration, so I just stick to what is easiest and is approved by FSF(currently Trisquel).
That said I still use the blobbed kernel on my entertainment/work machine. I see no harm in that(except harm to me, and I'm allowed to do that). I'm not a purist.
I believe he admitted himself that it was a wrong decision, and he's not a lawyer and he just didn't know better at the time, and while he understand the philosophy of FOSS movement he doesn't agree with it.
It appears that his primary motivation for using it was so that other companies don't steal it from him personally, and that he remained the owner of the project, that's it.
All I'll tell him is that he cares about his own success(and of his project) more than about the freedom of its users, and I don't think he will disagree with that.
@mtknn@cybre.space
Well, I wouldn't claim to be an expert in economics or history, but in my opinion what freedom we do have today is thanks to GPL and proponents of GPL. However many big influential projects that adopted GPL initially didn't really understand it. For many of them money and the project's success is more important that user freedom. This includes linux and I recently leanred xorg, and I'm sure many others, that while on the surface adopted GPL, in reality just misunderstood it (or at some point changed leadership that did not understand/want it), so later on supported any attempts to circumvent it. They didn't uprgade to GPL 3, or AGPL, as those were designed to combat new ways to circumvent the old license. As such I think GPL was never really widely adopted.
Meanwhile the monopolists threw huge amounts of money at OSS movement, both to develop it and market it as "better" and "more free"(as in "we're still free to exploit you... I mean.. no of course not, nevermind... freedom!"), their only agenda being "free/cheap workforce to work on their projects, the relevant parts of which will forever remain proprietary".
The majority of the consumer market stayed oblivious to these realities, and is still happy to shop in the virtual shops for virtual goods and automated services.
TLDR: most people don't understand GPL or FOSS to this day, even if they claim they did and tried it and it didn't work for its intended purpose.
@mtknn@cybre.space
I never said it is normal outcome today. It is not a normal outcome to be paid for working on permissive licensed software either. I said that the norm is proprietary software, and the norm needs to be broken, and GPL is a way to do it, while permissive licensed projects only accept and foster it, occasionally getting some "breadcrumbs"(or stars.. yeah mostly stars) in return. I said it is not easy. I said I don't blame anyone for not doing it if their livelihood depends on it. I said once proprietary software stops being the norm, and GPL becomes the norm(or is no longer necessary), it would be much easier for a developer to earn money without participating in exploitation of users and reinforcement of monopolies. I don't understand why you chose to ignore all of that, and now talk as if I said that "use GPL and you will immediately get a lot of money".
Going back to my original comment. Those are GPL battleships lined up in the docks, not GPL sacks of gold.
@mtknn@cybre.space
You present no logical arguments, only short statements and call my attempts to explain my reasoning a dogma? ok...
What you just alluded to with "not willing to do it yourself" in this context basically sounds like "If you're not a radical extremist then you're wrong". Nice argument... (I guess at least it is one).
I use GPL on all of my personal projects, and I would accept a job on a GPL project, even if it paid less than my current job, as long as I can live off of it and provide for my family. I'm sorry I don't just stop doing anything and die for GPL. That makes everything I said clearly wrong.
@mtknn@cybre.space
How is that relevant? I would very much like to live off writing GPL software, up until it's no longer necessary, when open source would become the norm. I'm sure some people do live off writing GPL software even today, and I envy them.
GPL is not designed to guarantee anyone's personal success, it's designed to prevent proprietary software from exploiting people and by extension the industry. My point was that once that is achieved, people would have more ethical opportunities to make money. I guess, I should clarify, that I'll never blame anyone for not using GPL, especially if their livelihood depended on it, but GPL is the most direct path to freedom, and only known way of defeating the established monopolies.
Regarding GPL not working, I think the we have open source software today largely thanks to GPL. OSS movement sprouted out of FOSS movement, as the existing industry's reaction to it, aiming to minimize damage. It was the last chance for proprietary software companies to keep up with FOSS, and they capitalized on it.
@mtknn@cybre.space
Of course, in perfect society where most people are like you. In current reality there is an obvious problem that you choose to ignore for some reason.
I won't press you anymore on this subject, and I'm sorry if it felt confrontational, I get too carried away sometimes.
I didn't say money is evil. In fact many times I said, that I won't blame any individual for not sacrificing money for freedom. I said money is not freedom, and that I would criticize someone who pursuing money and success, claims to pursue freedom.
Yes, the gun also doesn't allow you just change the slide that has the license statement printed on it, and suddenly make it legal in a duel. It's even more vicious, it says that if you use any part of it as a spare for another gun, the license applies to that gun too. It's very mean because it's very much against duels.
Again I'm not familiar with that specific example, but from what others have described here, it seems that the new owners of the factory were ok with duels, and it was very painful for them to recall all the existing guns, and remake the tooling to not engrave the "no-duels" license.
I don't see the argument. It's good that it was hard for them. And it's sad that for whatever reasons they are ok with duels(or can't afford to not be ok with duels).
I keep asking you to explain how exactly GPL cripples you, unless you have intentions to go proprietary. You ignore my question and go on tangents that eventually lead you to "I explicitly want to make(or allow someone else to make) my project proprietary, and I think it's fine because most other people think it's fine". There is nothing else that GPL restricts.
It's like a license on a gun saying "you may not use it to participate in duels to death, unless to stop the duel", in a society where duals to death are leagal and are the accepted norm. And you are arguing that not allowing duels to death is against freedom.
I didn't say anything makes anyone bad. What I'm trying to say is if you value freedom over money, you'll use GPL in todays climate. It sacrifices money for freedom, and the only reason to not use it is if that sacrifice is unacceptable for you, for whatever reasons. Could be good reasons, could be bad, but nevertheless that's what you are doing. Success in current climate of domination by proprietary software(and the mindset that it is natural) vs freedom.
Yes I wasn't aware of that, and I am out of touch with many things. It comes with a benefit of having my own arguments and not referring to others and saying "they are important people and they did it".
Many big projects were license under GPL by misunderstanding. Many big and famous group working on FOSS software, care about money more than freedom. That includes linux if you want an even bigger example. That doesn't change the argument.
I wouldn't blame someone for pursuing success or wealth in current industry and having to "play by the rules". I would criticize them however if they say they are doing it for freedom, when it is clear that they are not.
@mewmew For the purposes of this you can assume the most vicious type of GPL.
You are avoiding my question... and basically saying "everyone does this therefore it's right".
Also I never seen of a project that adopted GPL(understanding the point, not by mistake or misunderstanding) drop GPL.
What do you mean you can't "merge". As in "you can't make derivative work, that allows future derivative work to be proprietary?". Yeah, that's the whole point?? You're not explaining how is that hurting someone who doesn't care about copyright or proprietary software. It only hurts someone who has premeditated intention to make a proprietary fork/derivative work.
@freemo I think you might be a bit out of context here but anyway... you present yet another argument that would work in free software paradise(where GPL is moot anyway), but doesn't work in proprietary software hell that you don't realize you exist in (and the only known way out of it today is GPL).
How exactly does GPL hurt someone who doesn't care about copyright, I don't understand, can you explain that? It only hurts them, if their forfeited their right specifically with the intention for someone else to take over the project and make it proprietary.
Sorry to eavesdrop on your conversation, and intrude uninvited, but I smelled whiffs of "copyright is wrong -> GPL uses copyright -> GPL is wrong", and I would like to remind you that the way GPL uses it is - to troll the system, to twist and turn copyright around to make it destroy itself. And it is upfront about it, it doesn't try to pretend that copyright is good. There is no reason to not use it as a tool to achieve your goals today, in practise. Once you achieved the no copyright utopia, GPL will just be harmlessly deprecated.
well, that gave me a fright:
"huh? heh? wrong? me? what did I botch up this time?"
got to love sweet sweet context
