- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
The European Commission sees open-source software as more than an IT tool. Policy makers are encouraging open-source ecosystems to drive innovation, autonomy and collaboration in a world where global trade is being redrawn.
This trade dispute highlights something most open-source advocates have known for years: open source is freedom. It’s freedom from monopolies, freedom from arbitrary pricing, and freedom from foreign influence.
You must log in or register to comment.
But… This is a good thing. I will take it. More FOSS awareness is great news. As long as it sticks.
Good.
SEE!!! Trump is doing some good! It’s about time the power was taken from these arrogant, invasive, Silicon Valley companies.
Here comes Europe, Fuck Yeah. Here to save the motherfucking day yeah.
Freude, schöner Götterfunken!
(Joy, thou shining spark of God)
Tochter aus Elyyyysium
I strongly support the tariffs but if this gets more people to use software that respects their freedom, then hey, that’s even better.
Are you Russian?
I mean, I have to assume they meant “oppose” and just mistyped.
Something like sixth or seventh generation American. How dare I desire a setup where other nations exploit us less?!
Free trade isn’t exploitation.
In fact tariffs are just costing you more.
There is zero chance the USA will have anything to replace the amount you import in the term trump serves let alone a decade from now.
The USA will never compete with child slave labour in China and Mexico etc either.
This is what we’re dealing with here in the States, folks.
Gawd help us.
Exploit the US less? How is the US being exploited exactly?
Welcome to Lemmy. It sounds like you either come from a place of extreme privilege or you’re not actually sure how the tariffs will affect the people.
The idea behind the tariffs is fine. They want to drive union Members (fun fact, did you know that that’s how the founding fathers referred to citizens?) to buy and trade locally. However, many of the products we use in our day to day life come from industries that don’t exist in the US yet, and it will take years to create the required infrastructure and factories and farm land in order to create those industries.
Effectively, the tariffs would have been fine. If the US had actually been prepared to take care of itself. But it’s not, and it won’t be for a long time. So, the tariffs only exist as an extra tax right now.
Just noticed insane typos in the original comment, wow. Serves me right for using voice-to-text without proofreading.
Lemmy seems to be anti-AI, at least from my impression, but I am hopeful that AI will help invigorate the open source software world. If people can code better, faster, cheaper, safer (more secure) that will surely apply to open source as well. AI coding tools could bring on the Linux mainstream revolution. Imagine thousands of autonomous agents refining software for Linux. There could be a glut of driver support, apps coming to Linux, and so much more. I am hopeful about it.
If people can code better, faster, cheaper, safer (more secure) that will surely apply to open source as well.
I’m not European, but I understand that there’s an old European (German?) saying that basically goes: “If I had wheels, I’d be a trolley.” I understand that it’s been pretty well-established that AI coding tools routinely underperform compare to humans in terms of “better” and “safer”, which indirectly would also lead to it failing at “cheaper” too.
On top of that, there is another major issue with using AI for open-source code: copyright. First, you don’t know if the code that you’re adding through AI may be copying license-incompatible code verbatim. Because everyone has access to open-source code, it would be trivial for anyone to search and find copyright-infringing code to attack projects with. Second, the code that AI produces is also not-copyrightable, so that is another line of attack that this would make open-source projects vulnerable to. These could be used in combination as a one-two punch combination to knock out an open-source project.
I think that using AI-generated code in open-source projects is a uniquely ill-advised idea.
I won’t hold my breath on it.
Up until this minute, AI has produced plentiful examples of how it can produce anything but good code.
I’d rather have a developer writing software, slowly, because they have an intelectual itch and want to try and see the outcome of their idea than the proverbial army of monkeys furiously typing away.
The other problem is unlike stack overflow, a helpful answer by an AI isn’t visible and indexed therefore someone else has to do another prompt for the potential answer.
It’s pretty useful replacing stack overflow that could also generate code specific to your project. It’s also useful for testing. Like any tool, it has its use cases.
I sometimes float the idea in my brain to learn how to code. If I ever come to it, I want to debate and discuss my work with another human. Not a machine.
Personal preference.
That’s a great way to do it, but human attention on your code is a scarce and valuable resource. LLMs are great for the sort of lazy stupid questions where you benefit from a quick answer, but also don’t want to waste someone else’s time on. When you are learning nearly all the questions you’ll have will be like this, your progress is gated on finding the answers, and even if you are taking a class and it’s someone’s job to look at your code and help you understand what’s wrong with it, you have to wait your turn for that and only get so much help.
Unless they switch to running BSD, it’s all crap.
The isc/bsd2 license does not protect the user
You’re not a tech person, you’re an ideologue, so you wouldn’t understand the culture around ISC. If a company wants security, constancy, and longecity, BSD is the only thing to use.
Choosing between Windows and BSD, which would you prefer everybody use? There are companies that already banned GPL software from company computers, what should they use?
Look, im not even going to respond the first part. I love the bsd’s as well, from a technical standpoint. From a licensing standpoint, not so much (i see the value in a short license, though).
Im not concerned by what these companies use or do not use. Im concerned about protecting my, and other ‘common good’ software with a license that strictly prohibits user exploatation. The GPL does this perfectly.
GPL is evil. GPL is poison. You’re an ideologie. You are vapid of the original UNIX cultural mindset. It’s all mushy feelings you care about, not best tools to accomplish the work. You have no experience how to setup a BSD desktop. If you had a job as network gateway admin for employee network services, your argument would sound very different. You might as well as well say GPL fills my heart with so much love, I wish I could make passionate love to the GPL"
My brother in christ, unix was all rights reserved. There was a non-compete agreement prohibiting at&t from selling their OS, hence why it was more or less given to universities. Later, the BSD’s did a theseus ship, and at&t still tried to claim ownership through legal methods. For them, the license symbolizes this independence from at&t, which is why it doesnt lay claims on user protection.
https://m.slashdot.org/story/336593
https://www.hardenedbsd.org/~shawn/DEFCON-25-Ilja-van-Sprundel-BSD-Kern-Vulns.pdf
I doubt it changed much ant it sounds logical too.
I don’t know what you are saying. Can I assume that you have never touched BSD, know nothing about how it functions?
Which one?
To make it easier and more flexible, I would suggest FreeBSD on desktop and servers. For routers or firewall, there’s nothing else but OpenBSD.
