Most just see it as a get rich quick scheme.

It sucks, I don’t see how it could ever get past this.

I thought Monero solves this issue, with a level of effort large enough that it’s almost impossible to crack.

I haven’t heard of this before. How does it compare to Obsidian or Notion?

They just preferred to use WhatsApp. Switching to an alternative was trivially easy. People just didn’t want to because of personal preference. It would be trivially easy for me to stop drinking coffee every morning and only drink water

It’s not about personal preference. It’s about momentum. If I stop drinking coffee, only I am being affected. If I stop using Whatsapp, I now have to convince everyone I’m in contact with to also use the alternative when msging me before I can actually stop using WhatsApp.

If you want it to be a public utility and its owned by an American company, which country is going to be the one to make that happen?

I am confident the EU could do it. A complete transfer of ownership isn’t necessary for other countries to use exported services as public utilities. Public-private partnerships exist.

Also, calling “completely eradicating the first amendment in order to make it so that the American government can forcibly seize and censor people on its new state run social media websites” a “government problem” is an atomic bomb level of understatement.

“American freedom of speech = Nazis get to speak” was your stance before. Now it’s "Anything but American freedom of speech = government censorship". What am I even supposed to say here?

First off, I think you are being very rude. I didn’t call you names or make assumptions, so please treat this with more respect than a Twitter thread.

WhatsApp, by comparison, is trivially easy to replace.

Olvid, a French alternative to WhatsApp, was made in 2019. It took a law passing last month banning all ministers from using non in-house messaging services to stop people from using WhatsApp. I wouldn’t consider that “trivially easy”.

Also, your reasoning is kind of skewed, because in order to even use something like WhatsApp, you need other, already existing services. Namely internet access.

You didn’t mention Internet access and so neither did I. I’m happy we both agree it should be a utility.

I don’t know if you’re just speaking from a non-American context, or just don’t know how “freedom of speech” is codified into law in the United States.

I already said this is a “government problem”. I said this in reference to the US government, because this isn’t really an issue for most countries :/

When businesses ask you to contact their help-desk via WhatsApp, it’s a utility. When people call and message friends, family, and colleagues almost exclusively on WhatsApp or Messenger, it’s a utility.

It’s also putting the government in a position in which it functionally would have to provide a platform for everyone equally, Neo-Nazis […]

Godwin’s Law People preaching [insert terrible belief] on a government platform would be removed and charged for hate speech just as much as they would be if preaching these things in public spaces. If your government gives people with terrible_belief.jpg the chance to preach on public property, that’s not a public property issue, that’s a government issue.

Ultimately, saying social media should be a public utility is like saying casinos and strip clubs should be public utilities.

No, it isn’t. If anything, turning certain popular social media apps into public utilities would limit them from being pure dopamine hits. Let other websites exist to fill the cesspool void. Not the one my grandma uses.

I much prefer it over grub. I don’t think there’s any other bootloader’s that support btrfs snapshots.

I think flatpaks are good. The performance penalty for containerized software can be felt much more when you’re not using a good CPU. So containers do not “solve” my use case.

Could you pass me a link to an example setup?

“subvolume - cannot be snapshotted if it contains any active swapfiles”

Make a subvolume only for the swapfile.

has a chance to fragment

This is true for all files. Is it a bigger problem for swap?

has issues with hibernation (that I’ve personally encountered multiple times)

This one I can’t refute. How long ago did you have these issues?

Mount options also only take effect on the first mount of the device. Since it looks like you only have 1 btrfs device - only / needs the options, really.

I didn’t know this. Thanks!

Yeah it’s supported. It’s listed in the docs for btrfs and arch.

The fee could be really small but scale depending on factors like business size. Or there could be no fee outright for businesses smaller than a certain size.

Well the question is, how would such a license look like? Or would it be a contract and not a license?

I guess I should ask a lawyer these questions, but I wanted to see what others here thought about the idea.

Let’s not be nihilist here. It’s better to come up with solutions than to give up.

they only use Linux because it’s free. Companies create hardware on Linux because it’s free

Companies use open source software because it’s the cheapest option. It’s all about margins.

Nearly all of FOSS is funded by corporations whether you like it or not

Yes, and FOSS can get a lot more funding if they charged companies even a little bit.

So as long as it’s cheaper to pay a fee to continue to use an open-source software than it is to hire a group of developers to produce and maintain the same thing, the idea is viable.

In my opinion, the issue is that a cell phone is such a free-software-hostile environment that arguably GPL software shouldn’t “be allowed to” come into contact with it in any capacity if the spirit of the GPL were being upheld.

How are phones free-software-hostile? I know IOS is, but Android not really. There’s a list of open source Android distributions. Although not very good, they are viable.

Actually, maybe making it a realistic possibility to drop in a recompiled replacement should be a part of the GPL. I remember people were talking about this decades ago

It does feel out of place how that isn’t in the GPL.

If current licenses have the problem that big companies just ignore the terms set out in the license, I wouldn’t imagine making a new sort of license with different terms like “big companies have to pay to get the benefit of using Pots-Open Source software” is really going to work.

It’s more that they avoid the spirit of the licensing, not the terms (except Red Hat of course).

I suppose you can split this into two separate arguments:

• Swap from licenses to more enforceable contracts

• Have companies pay open source devs

Yeah pretty much

If you had also read the article BTW you would have realized that spoilers: it’s not about source code availability.

You saw the first few paragraphs about the Red Hat drama and didn’t read further.

Reading the whole thing you’d realize it’s a list of reasons why open source software hasn’t become popular with the wider public, and his proposed solution to this.

I just included the idea he is proposing, others can read the article to see his reasoning.