/tech/ - Technology

as a true communist i cannot use anything with "lib" in the name

>>23093
why i never set foot in a "lib"rary

I'm instantly suspicious of porky generosity
>libreddit no longer suffers from rate limit errors
why they want me to browse reddit again?
>weed legalized
why they want me couchlocked more often?

whats the difference with teddit?

>>23104
Teddit not working and its dev(s) gave up updating it.

>>23092
>ethically browse Reddit
wtf is this spooked gibberish I just read? It's called "privately browse Reddit," not "ethically."

>>23093
Libgen 😰 the genesis of libs

>>23150
stallmanites tend to call proprietary software "unethical"

>>23160
You're misinterpreting Stallman's ethics, they're mainly concerned about development, not use. If you use proprietary software you're not "evil," at max Stallman will view you as some kind of a masochist who denies themself their freedom, it's the people who made profit off of that software who are to blame.

That said, I don't care about ethics so I simply support that development model which it is in my interest to support. And since I hate the glowies and the Big Tech and like to tweak my software to my liking it's only natural that I would support libre software. Because there's nothing else to support.

>>23165
What? No. It is about use. And being used.
> With free software, the users control the program, both individually and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming those computers are loyal and do what the users' programs tell them to do).
> With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.
…
> If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

>>23168
It's about the development model which ensures that the users control the program. There is nothing in this text that contradicts my point. Unlike the Open Source enthusiasts, the software freedom advocates stress the importance of ethical development instead of merely practical one, that's the only difference. Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary goals to the Open Source enthusiasts, they always prioritize COLLABORATION, as if it's the most important thing about libre software.

The goal of libre software development is for you to not be used, yes. But if you're used you aren't "evil," the ones who use you are.

>>23175
>they always prioritize COLLABORATION
Which is development. I am not sure what you are trying to say. Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary to Free Software, too, they are not included in the four freedoms.

>>23176
>Which is development.
Not necessarily an ethical one. You can collaborate on developing proprietary software too. But proprietary software is unethical according to the FSF.
>Privacy, modifiability and trust are secondary to Free Software, too, they are not included in the four freedoms
They are derived directly from the four freedoms and from the user's control over their software. Without this control, all the privacy is basically "Trust us, bro" and all the modifiability is whatever toolkits the devs provide (which are in many cases none at all). Remember that Stallman started it all because he couldn't modify a printer's firmware which annoyed him a lot.

The only reason why OSS even has privacy, modifiability and trust is because most OSS is also libre, not the other way around.