How do we promote free and open source software/hardware?
We got GNU, Linux, BSD, AOSP, RISC, 3D printers, arduino, drones, open architecture, creative commons, and so on and so on.
What's the future of this? Revolution?
What happens if we have open source factories? No real hierarchy but the maintainer. No competition but collaboration.
All the products, tools and equipment being open source meaning that there is continues improvement on a global level. It would then also be logical that more things are locally produced, because of efficiency. Brands and intellectual property lose power, communities start becoming less dependent of other countries and multinational corporations. A cure for imperialism.
Is free and open source the revolution we need?
How do we promote free and open source software/hardware?
How do we promote free and open source software/hardware?
Other urls found in this thread:
Yes, free peer-to-peer organisation is the future. But in order to realise it we need to get beyond capitalism in a more classical way. Once we have a digitally planned economy we can (and should) organise it as an open source collaborative project.
On a side note, everyone here should be familiar with Open Source Ecology. It's a group of people who's mission is it to kickstart the open source economy.
They are working on the Global Village Construction Set consisting of 50 machines. These machines range from tractors, to cnc machines and wind turbines.
The developments are slow but I keep taps on them from time to time, and hope to be able to contribute or build one of the machines myself in the future.
Sorry, but no. As long as we still live under capitalism and as long as we are dependent on wage slavery to survive, projects like these will never benefit the people in any meaningful way and will be doomed to stay as cute side projects for those programmers.
But you could theoretically start a free and open business, and still be a successful entrepreneur in capitalism.
No. Theoretically that's impossible. A "free and open" business is incapable of producing economic value under capitalism since it cannot appropriate the fruits of its labour for itself.
Linux doesn't resemble minix in the slightest. Linux is a monolithic kernel. Minix was a microkernel. He read the book on how to create Minix and used it to create his own Unix like kernel. From an architectural standpoint microkernels are cleaner and better engineered but monolithic kernels are faster and far easier to implement. The fact that Linus was willing to make compromises is why Linux and to some extent Unix was popular in the first place. Look up the worse is better essay if you want to know more.
What do you mean?
Wait let me give me an example on what I mean.
Imagine a guy with a 3d printer
If the demand increases he will need more people, with a good open source business model you could run a successful business.
This user gets it.
There are currently existing open source SAAS products. Like data bricks. You can set up the hardware and software yourself or you can pay them to set it up and offer continual support.
If demand increases, a capitalist will come along, produce the board game cheap in Chinese factories, and sell the board game at Walmart. He's allowed to do this because of the copyleft licence. Subsequently your little hero goes out of business.
There are lots of businesses that publish their source code under free licenses, they get profits by offering services.
I don't think this is an adequate analysis. Why don't other companies pop up to provide the exact same services without having to lose resources developing software?
open source =/= free software
No, that's why I said Copyleft and not Open Source. I realize there isn't any real good copyleft license but I imagine it being licensed under the condition that you cannot sell it commercially without having an open source toolchain.
People are free to fork the project and make it their own, selling their own board game, which can cause for competition but with the right web interface you could create a network of manufacturers and people could choose where they want the product coming from.
This is an interesting concept. Maybe someone should develop a copyleft licence based on Marxist principles.
I'm still not seeing how the initial investment gets compensated though. If this development model is to be socialist in a meaningful sense, there must be some way to reward the creator for the labour lost making the product.
The only solution I currently see is to attach this licence to a central organisation (which may be peer-to-peer) maintaining the web interface. This organisation takes a bit off the profits made by manufacturers in the network and gives it to the initial creator. That could work, although we'd have to think about how we can make this flexible enough to fit the free software spirit and accessible enough to attract new manufacturers.
I should clarify that this is temporary. As soon as the labour is remunerated this redistribution stops.
I am not sure in what sense open source software, or for that matter the vision of localized production, has anything to do with communism - this appears to be, as does most other "software politics", a petit bourgeois concern and movement, not to mention that the development of digital technology has had a rather different effect on the regime of production that this not only appears irrelevant to any communist effort but also highly delusional and, at the very best, uninformed.
There you go friendo
Also if you're smart people you should start selling automation solutions direct to workers on an ultracopyleft license.
Also use lawsuits at the ECHR and everywhere else to make it illegal to be fired for automating yourself away, use the leaked labour hours to fund a parallel structure and we'll have cybernetic degrowth getting test runs by 2025 and P=NP post Anprim society before 2050.
And we'll really have anarchists on nuke powered hovercrafts chasing Dengists and Americans.
Well where the fuck is it? I'm tired of this old FX CPU.
Because they are also the source code maintainers. Due to network effects, even with the code published, they're the only ones with real central power to maintain the codebase. And they're the only ones with really in-depth knowledge of it. As a result, they can sell as a service their help with the codebase, dual licensing deals, and other stuff.
I'm not saying it has anything to do with communism though. Free software as it stands today is really corporate, it always was (read Stallman's book, he devotes a considerable amount of time to explaining how free software is good for capitalism). It's a way to mitigate research/blueprint/fixed capital costs.
He means RISCV. It means nothing. It's uses a permissive licence. Corporations are just going to use it to make proprietary products. Also CISC is better than RISC.
What is this, 1989? RISC was shown to be superior by Patterson and Hennessy over 30 years ago. even intel runs on risc now they just have microcode to translate their instructions to RISC underneath for backwards compatibility purposes.
Read pic related like literally any CS/CE/EE student does
I actually used to love spending time reading all the shit about pipelines, what happened to hopes and dreams and youth and why does everything feel empty and shit?
because you need to have fun once in a while
And that's why we need a communist revolution, thanks for reminding me comrade.
Also should a leftist government actively persecute and ostracise Java y/n ?
yes, all mission critical software should be either written in RUST or a functional programming language
not just any functional language, rather a pure, strongly typed functional language.
do you mind giving a quick description on the content of the PDF? seems interesting, but I couldn't quite make sense of it with a quick skim.
what about LISP and scheme tho?
not everything needs to be typesafe, alot of UI code and informational things can just be made using dynamic language
You're right. This has very little to do with communism.
This is what I thought. With free software, aspiring developers are forced to perform labour for corporations for free, since employers expect you to have contributed to some open source projects before they even consider hiring you.
Stallman literally has Asperger, just saying.
No thats bullshit from RISC shills. CISC architectures were always implemented that way. Even before RISC processors were invented. Computer Science and Electric Engineering are about abstraction. Of course they use smaller instructions to create larger ones. Why wouldn't they? RISC was only faster than CISC for an extremely brief period when memory was as fast or faster than CPU clock speeds. Nowadays you want your're code to not touch memory as much as possible. CISC processors are much better for that kind of thing. Not to mention most "RISC" manufactures have complicated CISC instructions in their chip sets like ARM64. Take a look at the Power9 or ARM64 instruction set. There is nothing reduced about them.
Saying what? That you took the autism meme seriously?
LISP is fun for CS projects, but I don't see any real software development taking place in it.
it's a legitimate disorder, it comes from literal damage to the frontal lobe
People on image boards obsessively call each other autists because they project their own insecurity over being socially awkward onto other people.
This autist took it all seriously, and now thinks having Asperger's somehow makes you less of a person.
And it isn't anything near as simple as "damage to the frontal lobe." Read a fucking book.
Plenty of major projects have been made in LISP. Most of the machine learning algorithms people love nowadays were implemented in lisp or prolog. It's a very nice language that makes it easy to express abstract computer science concepts but I prefer functional languages like Ocaml or fast languages like Rust or Ada. C++ is ok. I don't like "simple" languages like C or Go at all.
it doesn't make him less of a person, but he believes in stupid shit like sex with parrots and consensual pedophilia
Contributing to opensource is literal praxis. Contribute/give/share the means of production. Make open software.
Nothing wrong with this
Open sores is revisionist
open-source prevents any single owner and relies on the voluntary labor of a group of people. sounds pretty commie to me. its not like every project on github is actually useful for anything but it is a clear example of an alternative structure to produce useful items that is not capitalist. Open source isn't exclusive to software, plenty of open-source hardware out there.
I always thought Lisp was more American and Prolog more European/Japanese, at least in the early days of machine learning algorithms. I've heard it from other people too, maybe it was just an academic/R&D quirk.
Maybe I found out about Prolog a lot latter than I did about LISP. LISP defiantly seems more popular in English speaking countries. I like both a lot.
TAKE THE REDOX PILL
LEARN RUST AND OS DEV, and contribute today! REDOX WILL BE THE OS OF THE CYBERNETIC SOCIALIST FUTURE AND OF THE PROLETARIAT!
also its a microkernel like minix
I read LISP for the first time as an act of slightly Ameriboo hobbyist defiance, Prolog was considered the absolute normal.
i thought linux was the os of the proletariat
It's cuck licensed. BSD/MIT are peak liberalism.
What is RedHat?
Interesting, I'll check it out.
we need an AGPL Rust kernel. The MIT license absolutely fucks kernel development because they have to make convoluted license compatibility layers to use drivers from the Linux kernel.
Were you working in Europe or Asia? Lisp was reasonably popular in Japan in the 90s I think.
uh no this is FUD, its a microkernel and the drivers all live in userland not the kernel, they interact via a API/ABI, there is no reason you cant write a gpl licensed driver, or system component for redox and even use it in the linux ecosystem
Why dont you contact jeremy and ask if he can dual license it under GPL? Im sure if you frame it as being a OS dev that knows rust and would contribute a ton, if only it was under GPL you could convince him to do it. But if you arent gonna contrib any code then who knows
Yeah you're right you don't even need a microkernel for that. BSDs have no problem porting over linux drivers because they aren't put into the actual kernel.
Isn't Stallman literally autistic ? Why have someone with down syndrome as the leader of your movement , even if it is just a mild type of down syndrome ?? I don't get it .
Stop being ableist.
what is nova?
Many Socialist states are developing Linux distros for their own use. They don't want to be reliant on Microsoft for obvious reasons.
Country -> Linux distro
Cuba -> Nova
Venezuela -> Canaima
North Korea -> Red Star OS
Moving forward, I think Linux will die off and be replaced by BSD. Not for any technical reasons, but because eight months ago, Linux was infiltrated by "woke" activists. They implemented a "Code of Conduct" which is designed to drive average dudes away from the project.
hmm, whats the state of BSD and which one should we use? i heard OPENBSD is completely secure from hacking
So just ubuntu.
Oh yeah, and you got it from reddit of all places.
Nothing is safe from hacking. BSD has a steep learning curve, FreeBSD is the most popular followed by OpenBSD. OpenBSD is more secure, but how you use it is more important for security.
Reddit is not a hivemind and you can follow the sources in the post. Or just look up the numerous other complaints on the web about Linux's new "Code of Conduct".
I just want to let you know that you have a Zig Forums-tier understanding of the world. Please read a fucking book.
If it were secure it would not be written in fucking C and a UNIX clone.
well your shitting on redox, i dont see what the alternative is
Isn't Ubuntu NSA backdoored to hell and back though?
You can promote GNU/Linux by not being such fucking cultists about it for a start, who shits on other people's choices as a matter of course. Be more diplomatic, less abrasive, and maybe more people will be inclined to listen as opposed to argue.
Oh yes, I've heard of that a year ago. This is a hate train that a majority of people on it now has no clue of.
They aren't equivalent and I believe that vault 7 had a exploit on the OS too.
Keep following that luke dude and switch to BSD when he does because muh sjw and elitism and watch how it didn't even make a difference with all that other shit he and you have on your system.
emacs > vim
gentoo > void
Everybody else > Theo
Free Software > Open wound licence
MacOS > BSD
Yes, so why does NOVA use it then? Ignorance?
make a monolith kernel that's GPL and POSIX compatible in Rust
Games games games games
It what brings the average person in. Its what platforms like the c64 and zx spectrum thrived on. Nobody were buying those things to type out their school report.
Users aint got time for that. If its possible, move WINE to the dev side of the equation. Make it their headache to figure out and then release their games on.
These are just petty bourg liberal phantasies. There is a reason every major software project, no matter its license, is developed by large, "authoritarian" organisations with paid developers. It is the most efficient way to go, the only problem is that they are owned/controlled by an unaccountable elite which leads to the software being designed and used as tools against the software users. Windows 7 is much nicer to use than any GNU/Linux distro
that's what Steam's Proton system does basically. it works very well.
lmao no it isn't.
I constantly have to type shit from the web into the command line for every little thing and the DEs are vey buggy and lacking in polish.
easier than dealing with layers upon layers of GUI
somewhat true, though KDE is very nice now. The thing is, if you've used Windows recently, its DE is also very buggy and lacking in polish, but there's not even a real excuse since they have so much money. I'd say KDE is actually more polished and stable in many areas. GNOME too, but it's too bloated.
lacking major features that you come to expect when using Linux (such as multiple desktops). deprecated.
t. Retard who at most tried Linux once.
I installed Linux on my tech illiterate moms pc, she can use it with ease.
Ok you start it and I’ll contribute
no. we'll do it after the revolution.
sure, not like a kernel takes 20-30 years to make or anything. I'm sure GNU HERD will be ready in 2029 just in time for real socialism
I don't even have that much of an interest in partaking in this thread or discussing this outside the designated thread. I just think it's sad how selective the left is in its questioning of the corporate media. Richard Stallman is obviously much smarter than you and yet here you are trying to pretend that your ideology being misrepresented and demonized is somehow any different from when it happens to anybody else.
Neoliberal capitalist democracy has attracted the dumbest idiots on the planet. Do not emulate capitalist neoliberal democracy.
use an old computer as a seedbox for torrents
it doesn't tbh. also, we should pretty much scrap the majority of kernel code (drivers) as the only reason there's so much driver code is that everyone refuses to share architecture and code in common.
Scrap all the old drivers and computers along with it.
The new socialist computer shall break through all previous limits and destroy all the structures of old.
we could keep around a fair bit of old tech, it would be very environmentally wasteful to do otherwise. Just, create some kind of compatibility layer or something that reduces redundant drivers.
We need to make it so that primary/elementary school computers use free software first.
If your brought up using windows/mac it likely you're gonna die using them too.