I've always felt guilty by taking for granted the rare breed of virtuous humans that provide free excellent software without relying on advertising. Let's change that and pay, how much would I “lose” anyway?

I’ve always felt guilty by taking for granted the rare breed of virtuous humans that provide free excellent software without relying on advertising. Let’s change that and pay, how much would I “lose” anyway?

  • kbal@fedia.io
    331·
    10 months ago

    telegram mega vivaldi spotify

    A whole lot of words follow but if fucking Spotify is on your list of free software, all that indicates to me is that you’ve put a whole lot of work into failing to understand the concept of free software.

    • CynicusRex@kbin.socialOP
      10·
      10 months ago

      User @QuazarOmega already pointed this out, it depends on the definition of free, of which I’m positive the majority of my list complies with. Moreover, I did apologise for including Spotify, and offer alternatives:
      “Despite their free version forcing ads, the paid version is too convenient, sorry. However, their UXD has become more annoying so I’m not sure how long I’ll stick… If cross platform functionality isn’t a big deal for you then consider Tidal which pays artists significantly more [5], or BeatSense for simple YouTube playlists and listening together.”

      If there are better alternatives—to anything really—please share them instead.

      Regarding Vivaldi: Why isn’t Vivaldi browser open-source?
      Lastly, about Mega and Telegram, I added “breaks rule 3” to their listing. Mega is just remarkably convenient too, and unless the populace suddenly turns geek and they find out about the Matrix protocol, I’d prefer they use Telegram en masse instead of WhatsApp.

      • kbal@fedia.io
        14·
        10 months ago

        I don’t really give a damn about why the developers of Vivaldi (and the others) chose not release it as free software. They made that choice long ago and have stuck with it. That’s fine. It means I have no interest in their product, but to me it also means that discussion about it is out of place in an article with “free software” literally in the title in a forum called “linux” where the FSF definition of freedom should prevail.

        • CynicusRex@kbin.socialOP
          211·
          10 months ago

          I don’t really give a damn about why

          That’s a slippery slope into bigotry, dogma. It should be possible to understand another perspective without necessarily agreeing with it. Unwillingness to listen limits the pathways to finding solutions.

          As aforementioned, I think the majority of the software listed does not clash with the FSF definition of freedom. Unless I started shilling Zuckerberg products I don’t think it detracts from the point I’m trying to make.

      • drndramrndra@lemmygrad.ml
        3·
        10 months ago

        Regarding Vivaldi: Why isn’t Vivaldi browser open-source?

        To save anyone else from losing time on this bullshit:

        They’re scared of their FOSS fork being forked. The rest of the article is just an attempt to make them sympathetic, and muddy the waters. That’s why GPL > BSD

        A new project based on our code might implement features that are fundamentally in opposition to our ethics (e.g., damaging to privacy, human rights or to the environment). Even though we would not be associated with the project in any way, it can deeply affect how people see Vivaldi (and how we see ourselves), damaging a reputation we have taken pains to earn.

        Fuck off

    • Ramin HonaryEnglish
      4·
      10 months ago

      A whole lot of words follow but if fucking Spotify is on your list of free software, all that indicates to me is that you’ve put a whole lot of work into failing to understand the concept of free software.

      That’s a bit harsh. I would agree with you that they seem to be pretty ignorant of the finer points of free software, like the difference between free-as-in-beer software, free-as-in-freedom software, and so-called “open source” software. But to be fair, the article was more about economics than about software, and I mostly agreed with a number of their arguments.