I don’t think this meme format means what you think it means
So wait…
Is the girl drinking from two sources, or is the guy drinking second hand?
I think the implication is supposed to be that people get common misconceptions from tech influencers doing linux videos, but it does kinda work as her drinking from both.
To put on my fanciest trilby and um actually it, I think a more accurate version would be the straw having “popular misunderstandings” and the man being “linux newcomers”. Then it would be pure and correct, and I could sleep at night.
That makes a lot more sense. I think that was my initial thought, but then I questioned the directionality of the straw and maybe the guy was a source of… Sustenance…
Because without the meme format, I’d think it was supposed to be a romantic “sharing” picture.
Buuuut there also exist… people in this world.
Like https://static0.gamerantimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/pike-death-hxh.jpg
… such as?
Confusing “FOSS” with “free software” comes to mind.
Count Me in the confused group, I thought FOSS was free as in speech software
Free as in speech (software) is nowadays usually referred to as libre.
English is a horrible language full of ambiguity. F/LOSS is libre, but not necessarily gratis.
Isn’t it usually the opposite, gratis (because if it’s open source, you could just build it yourself, unless there’s a proprietary build env or hosted env) but not necessarily libre (because of the license?)
So wouldn’t gratis normally be the superset of libre.
Then there’s a set of gratis but not open source… someone should do a venn diagram.
I could potentially just say it costs money to use this software, but allow you to build it yourself if you don’t want to
It’s called Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in case you were wondering
RHEL contains non-FOSS components, and so is not FOSS.
Okay, I’d have to think of a more pure example, but you get the idea. Downloads and support not free, but compile it yourself if you want
What’s gratis?
All natural human languages have ambiguity. English is no better or worse than any other.
Ambiguity is inherent in all human languages, agreed. But English is one of the most fucked up languages, and in many ways different than most other languages.
Possible reason: it is a hybrid language over-prescribed by racist and classist institutions, which currently serves as a lingua-franca and still rapidly evolves because of all the tech and marketing that happens in the US (in other words, what the fuck is a “slopometer”).
/c/badlinguistics
Well, I look up the community, no posts. I look up your post history, your sole contributions are calls for a badlinguistics community, or calling out comments for being badlinguistics. I find your crusade rather amusing, and I am here to respond to any possible criticism you have about my greatlinguistics.
Generally, FOSS includes both copy-left stuff that is free as in speech, and licenses that are restrictive over what you can actually do with that source code.
No it doesn’t.
“Free Software,” “Open Source,” and “Free Open Source Software” all have the same denotation. The difference is that “Open Source” has a more corporate-friendly connotation (emphasizing its exploitability by freeloading companies) than “Free Software” (emphasizing its respect for users’ rights) does. “Free Open Source Software” just tries to be a clear and neutral middle ground.
Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither “Free Software,” “Open Source,” or “FOSS.”
Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither
I am not so sure. What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code. More broadly, from the start CC licenses were described as “Some rights reserved”.
Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license. So I think that your statement is not correct either. FLOSS licenses can very much restrict what you can do, and do so very regularly.
What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code.
What? That’s not true at all. You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.
Edit: your comment was wrong in multiple ways, and I only addressed one before replying.
In addition to simply not saying what you claimed it says, CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses. That means OSI either rejected it or didn’t evaluate it at all. (I assume the latter, in this case, because CC-BY-SA isn’t even intended for software source code to begin with!)
Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license.
No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.
You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.
No.
No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.
This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can’t have a socialist biodome specifically for code.
CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses.
Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.
EDIT: “do” = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao
Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do; are you saying GPL licensed software isn’t Open Source?
Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do
No, that’s not true. The GPL imposes zero restrictions. Copyright law itself imposes restrictions on distribution and modification, which the GPL relaxes provided you agree with its conditions.
Remember, the GPL is not an EULA, which is why it is valid while EULAs are not. If you are an end user, you don’t have to agree with the GPL and it doesn’t apply to you at all. It only kicks in when you want to do something that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law.
Say I’m writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?
Copyright law has no specifics about source code redistribution. Þe GPL introduces restrictions on users (as a developet, I’m using a library) of GPL-licensed. Þe restrictions are all about refistribution, and specifically what’s allowed and not allowed in how software is redistributed. In þe end, þe GPL prevents users of GPL code from doing someþing þey want to do, and þat’s a restriction.
A law against murder may be a good law, but it still a restriction. Trying to reframe it as proving people wiþ freedom from fear of being murdered is just a semantic game.
This is not correct. In typical use, copyleft means that you have to redistribute it as free software (GPL and variations). The opposite is “permissive”, you can use the software commercially, and charge others to use it as closed source. Copyleft is good for developers, permissive is good for companies.
So “free as in speech” is not even a good analogy. “Liberated” is more like it, perhaps I will start using libre more strictly…
Wine is not an emulator.
Linux doesn’t require programming knowledge to use, just computer knowledge at most.
I seen a few go opposite end and claim “you do not need computer knowledge, you can just ask chatgpt for the commands and copy-paste.”
The two commands below are equivalent so why the fuck does every single guide online use former?
sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade sudo apt upgrade -UThe second way doesn’t work on older systems before they added it. I have some Debian servers where it doesn’t work
Because I understand the former
The latter can both summon nasal demons and not summon nasal demons. It is in a state superposition until an observer consults the manual
Not in apt manpage.
But in fact at man apt-get.
I blame the feds.
how the fuck is my apartment going to get clean then
Ah wow a pedantic semantical objection, that’s egregious as fuck that they thought it was something that is identical to a layman
This is about some nerd telling me my Linux issues don’t exist and I just need X distro?
That’s relative to situation and also usually the easier solution to a certain problem because if you need to find a solution for your distro it might come to compiling from source. So, either switch to the distro recommended or just start from Gentoo for everything. If you’re using Gentoo, no nerd will tell you to switch to another distro.
i am a nerd and want to do that just to prove a point. so switch distros! i don’t know what to, i haven’t used linux since college.
wait i just figured it out switch to hannah montana because it would be funny
Hats off to the meme distros that actually fix a problem by the way. :)
If you’re using Gentoo, no nerd will tell you to switch to another distro.
Funny! Lmao
Not using the right distro is the source of everyone’s problem, according to the community
I mean, certain distros are very good at marketing themselves/becoming well known, but actually impede wider adoption of Linux due to their piss poor choices or issues that aren’t apparent until they have been in use for a few months, so sometimes, yes, the answer is to move to something less broken in weird ways.
Whatever distro you end up on, someone will be in the comments to tell you why it’s the wrong choice.
Unless you’re using Arch, btw
Nah, manjaro is arch based and always the wrong choice.
Except for that one person that tells you to USD Artix instead
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.
wait someone update this meme to have me drinking out of a straw chain out of the hot dude’s straw chain. please title me “complete bullshit lies about FOSS”
edit: and make me happy gollum with three teeth. that’s my mood today.
