you can still use OpenRC instead if you want, and sxmo will continue to do so by default.

you can read here about why they added systemd.

I’m planning on revitalizing and bringing this old Itautec to the 21st century

I think it was born in the 21st century? From this it looks like the first Celeron M was in 2004, and the first at that clockspeed was 2005.

Also, 2GB of RAM is plenty for many purposes - that’s more than any Raspberry Pi before the Pi 4 had!

The rest of me is all, “It’s still 2025!! If we have the Bell Riots now we’re still on-pace for a Star Trek future!!”

The Bell Riots were in September 2024.

Our universe’s lack of Eugenics Wars in the 90s was already pretty strong evidence that we’re not living in the prime timeline.

Ah, this is jogging my memory:

HyperCard 1.x was given away as a standard item with the purchase of a new Mac Plus, SE, or II. This was the key to HyperCard’s early success. HyperCard 2.x had to be purchased separately. However, Apple made and gave out HyperCard Player, a freeware application that allowed one to run HyperCard stacks.

But yeah, HyperStudio was something else entirely (HyperCard-inspired but not compatible).

HyperCard was basically the viewer/player for HyperCard stacks/files. HyperStudio was the program used to make them.

This is incorrect. The HyperCard application could both create and play back HyperCard stacks. It could also export them as stand-alone applications which people could use without needing to run HyperCard.

I should admit that it’s been years since I messed around with old Macintosh or looked into the old Mac retro sites, it’s probably out there somewhere…

You can use HyperCard on an emulated Mac in a web browser at https://system7.app/ - it’s in the Multimedia folder there :)

OP, did you find this article due to the likely-originated-from-soda-jerk-lingo term 86 being in the news today or is that just a coincidence? 😂

this is a good meme

Lmao that my pedanticism could be perceived as BSD advocacy - fwiw, I primarily use GNU/Linux, I develop GPL-licensed software, and I think GPLv3 or AGPLv3 are good choices for many new projects starting today.

My opinions about the history and future of copyleft are somewhat complicated but I didn’t mention any opinions in the comment you’re replying to - I was just correcting your factual misunderstandings about the accepted definitions of these terms.

i hope it doesn’t!

you’re wishing death specifically on people celebrating the anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany?

thanks i hate it

Do tech journalists at the New York Times have any idea what they’re talking about? (spoiler)

As I wrote in the thread about this last month on [email protected]:

I wonder how much work is entailed in transforming Fedora in to a distro that meets some definition of the word “Sovereign” 🤔

Personally I wouldn’t want to make a project like this be dependent on the whims of a US defense contractor like RedHat/IBM, especially after what happened with CentOS.

and, re: “what do you mean ‘redhat is a defense contractor’?!”: here are some links.

(source)

you could edit your post title…

Nope.

Nope, it is.

It allows someone to use code without sharing the changes of that code. It enables non-free software creators like Microsoft to take the code, use it however they like, and not have to share back.

This is correct; it is a permissive license.

This is what Free Software prevents.

No, that is what copyleft (aims to) prevent.

Tired of people calling things like MIT and *BSD true libre/Free Software.

The no True Scotsman fallacy requires a lack of authority about what what constitutes “true” - but in the case of Free/Libre software, we have one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

If you look at this license list (maintained by the Free Software Foundation’s Licensing and Compliance Lab) you’ll see that they classify many non-copyleft licenses as “permissive free software licenses”.

They’re basically one step away from no license at all.

Under the Berne Convention of 1886, everything is copyrighted by default, so “no license at all” means that nobody has permission to redistribute it :)

The differences between permissive free software licenses and CC0 or a simple declaration that something is “dedicated to the public domain” are subtle and it’s easy to see them as irrelevant, but the choice of license does have consequences.

The FSF recommends that people who want to use a permissive license choose Apache 2.0 “for substantial programs” because of its clause which “prevents patent treachery”, while noting that that clause makes it incompatible with GPLv2. For “simple programs” when the author wants a permissive license, FSF recommends the Expat license (aka the MIT license).

It is noteworthy that the latter is compatible with GPLv2; MIT-licensed programs can be included in a GPLv2-only work (like the Linux kernel) while Apache 2.0-licensed programs cannot. (GPLv3 is more accommodating and allows patent-related additional restrictions to be applied, so it is compatible with Apache 2.0.)

I often see Rust mentioned at the same time as MIT-type licenses. Is it just a cultural thing that people who write Rust dislike Libre licenses?

The word “libre” in the context of licensing exists to clarify the ambiguity of the word “free”, to emphasize that it means “free as in freedom” rather than “free as in beer” (aka no cost, or gratis) as the FSF explains here.

The MIT license is a “libre” license, because it does meet the Free Software Definition.

I think the word you are looking for here is copyleft: the MIT license is a permissive license, meaning it is not a copyleft license.

I don’t know enough about the Rust community to say why, but from a distance my impression is that yes they do appear to have a cultural preference for permissive licenses.

[email protected] is the more active of the two lemmy communities about it

as of March 19, yes it should be

from Change Agent: Gene Sharp’s Neoliberal Nonviolence :

Sharp’s ideas about nonviolent action are generally billed as apolitical, post-ideological, common sense activist strategy and tactics. But they actually flowed from a clear worldview. Sharp saw “centralized government” as the key vector of violence in the modern world. He supported “decentralizing” state functions to “independent,” “non-State” institutions—a prescription that sounds a lot like privatization. Importantly, he argued nonviolent action itself was the most strategic way to bring about this state transformation.

With the rise of the Reagan-era foreign policy of communist “rollback,” Sharp began promoting “strategic nonviolence” internationally through his Albert Einstein Institution (AEI). Sharp co-founded AEI with his former student Peter Ackerman, who was simultaneously right hand man to the notorious corporate raiding “junk bond king” Michael Milken. Later, Ackerman was a Cato Institute board member and advocate of disemboweling social security. AEI spent the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s training activists, policymakers, and defense leaders around the world in Sharp’s nonviolent methods, supporting numerous “color revolutions”—again and again in state socialist countries whose administrations were attempting to oppose the privatization, austerity policies, and deregulation being pushed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Treasury-led “Washington Consensus.” Sharp’s “people-powered” nonviolent “ju-jitsu” would prove surprisingly effective, distinguishing itself as a powerful weapons system in the U.S. regime change arsenal. While AEI was an independent non-profit, it had significant connections to the U.S. defense and intelligence community. One prominent AEI consultant was Colonel Robert Helvey, former dean of the National Defense Intelligence College. AEI’s regular funders included U.S. government pass-throughs like the U.S. Institute for Peace, the International Republican Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy.