Post AvFPPdX7ooiVxMNAmm by Starkimarm@23.social
(DIR) More posts by Starkimarm@23.social
(DIR) Post #AvFPPdX7ooiVxMNAmm by Starkimarm@23.social
2025-06-18T05:16:52Z
7 likes, 4 repeats
Oh boy, the Mansplaining Olympics are wild this year.
(DIR) Post #AvFXXAXEJhaHyBWZjU by Wolffkran@poa.st
2025-06-18T08:48:58.000723Z
3 likes, 2 repeats
Bad news, him being a male easily trumps her knowledge as the companies president
(DIR) Post #AvFe4lVyRnUFwRL9YO by ralocycleuse@eldritch.cafe
2025-06-18T08:06:41Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@Starkimarm this is beyond what I could ever have imagined
(DIR) Post #AvFe4mu7HWOQFbdwp6 by shalien@mastodon.projetretro.io
2025-06-18T10:02:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ralocycleuse @Starkimarm .... Ok dude
(DIR) Post #AvFn8Qj8ZoEYDQJsDQ by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T11:43:41.604Z
5 likes, 0 repeats
@Starkimarm@23.social Actually I don't trust Signal's president at all and I wouldn't be surprised if they are lying.I can totally see LLM integration in proprietary apps like Signal happening in less than two years ago, regardless of what Meredith thinks today.
(DIR) Post #AvFpD6P7lOc4XeJXe4 by tchauhan@mastodon.mit.edu
2025-06-18T12:06:48Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @Starkimarm Mozilla pulled something similar with their browser.
(DIR) Post #AvFqII61ouhcCpQ7Ga by redstarfish@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-06-18T12:19:08.983259Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @Starkimarm When I reminded per that Signal tried to add cryptocurrencies, I received no response. (Which I don't blame her, perse must be a busy person.) But, I can totally imagine Signal pulling stunts like that.
(DIR) Post #AvFqiLdBIhpIhKLtey by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T12:23:48.891Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@redstarfish@freesoftwareextremist.com @Starkimarm@23.social I think Signal is not worth engaging with because they are not free software and they keep actively refusing to make the necessary changes for their app to be added to the official fdroid repositories.Stuff like this should be their top priority you'd think if they actually cared.
(DIR) Post #AvFsBQA1dcqx6B8qiO by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T12:40:19.865749Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @Starkimarm one of my friends told me that moxie was telling people they weren't working on cryptocurrency stuff, while they were actively working on mobilecoin. I don't know if that's true but maybe worth investigating to determine how reliable they are as company execs
(DIR) Post #AvGf6MVOhFDM4HM6ng by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:48:25.640530Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris > Going back to what was actually being discussed: F-Droid act as an insecure and untrustworthy middleman between app developers and users.You can't usually just go from 'app developer' to 'users' in the android ecosystem -- android/google has made a point to requiring a middleman. And sure you can just download apks if you know how to verify them yourself but the average user is not going to know how to do that - they need something *like* a package manager to do this.
(DIR) Post #AvGfO1ulzV8tQ4eKsS by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:50:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika That's not true. There is no requirement of a middleman and it was not built into the operating systems at all. The operating systems do include a package manager with mandatory signature verification. There are options like App Verifier for checking the key fingerprint for the initial installation. There are also still app stores distributing developer signed builds of apps as the Play Store itself was based around doing into quite recently.
(DIR) Post #AvGfO307x51GmyA7rU by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:51:38.876991Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika > . The operating systems do include a package manager with mandatory signature verification.you're not seriously recommending people use google play to install stuff to me
(DIR) Post #AvGg3wvgur9o7Y4Gdk by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:53:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika Play Store is not a package manager. Android's package manager is part of the Android Open Source Project. The code and APIs for installing/updating packages are part of AOSP and have nothing to do with the Play Store. The Play Store is one app store. There are many other app stores including ones distributing developer signed builds. Any app install whether via an app store using those APIs, the install GUI within the OS or ADB is through that.
(DIR) Post #AvGg3y7mTOQDpKjR7g by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:59:13.276535Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika > There are many other app stores including ones distributing developer signed builds.I mean free software specific ones. Better than @fdroidorg . Name one. I'll accept that there may be something closer to a real package manager accessible to google play/apis/other app 'stores'/fdroid/adb (though, despite deploying apps having never touched it myself) -- that just pushes the problem of 'how to get users to know where to go for free software apps' up a level
(DIR) Post #AvGlBQir2omGJtRxSK by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T22:56:33.343391Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo fwiw my framing would be that sometimes you can't have both freedom and maximum security and you have to make a choice. I am personally not a gnu maximalist I just see their maximalism as a thing that has protected me overall. I make choices sometimes that don't jive with libre politics but I also don't frame them as actually freedom either.
(DIR) Post #AvGluLUdKlCT8HDQRc by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:02:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo They are not freedom maximalists. They care little abouit open hardware and open firmware. It has been repeatedly stated in this thread that blocking updating firmware/software means it doesn't count and can be proprietary, closed source code. To them, it only counts if someone could make an update. Therefore, they don't care about it for software either according to what has been repeatedly stated here as long as updates are not possible.
(DIR) Post #AvGluMPhuYqzzHv0PA by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:04:26Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo In fact, they make and promote products which take regular hardware which supports firmware updates and blow fuses or otherwise modify it to prevent updating it. In some cases, they're taking away the ability for people to write new firmware to replace the existing firmware.It is very much 100% possible to sell a variant of hardware where fuses for verified boot are not burned with tools for the user to do it if they want, or not do it.
(DIR) Post #AvGmKuS5ymmx5Lh9eK by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:06:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo In fact, they make and promote products which take regular hardware which supports firmware updates and blow fuses or otherwise modify it to prevent updating it. In some cases, they're taking away the ability for people to write new firmware to replace the existing firmware.It's 100% possible to sell hardware where fuses for verified boot are not yet burned along with supplying tools for users to do it. How is blocking updates more free?
(DIR) Post #AvGmKveXW0KwoEWbgW by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:08:51Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Due to them defining a loophole in their ideology where blocking updates makes it not count, they're encouraging taking away user control rather than granting it. That is exactly what was done with the Librem 5 taking away ways of updating firmware, putting blobs on a secondary CPU and preventing replacing the software there, etc. That is not more open or more free, but less. They defined a huge loophole in their rules and gaming it is encouraged.
(DIR) Post #AvGnEsOsnM22wEsaOm by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:10:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo End result is closed source hardware with closed source firmware where work actively went into preventing the user from doing things in a way that harms security. It's a way to lower privacy, security and freedom all at once. This is the problem with having an ideology incredibly detached from anything to do with people's well being where it's largely just rhetoric and gaming it.It's similar to pretending as if GPL doesn't limit freedom.
(DIR) Post #AvGnEtRku9vMBREOW0 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:17:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Linux kernel is GPLv2 only. The code cannot be taken and used in an GPLv3 project. This is a very clear restriction on how the code can be used which is very often relevant. These kinds of license incompatibilities between licenses considered 'free' are a result of restrictions on how the code can be used. Some major projects exist due to these silly incompatibilities.State enforced rules about how you can use the code is not freedom maximalism.
(DIR) Post #AvGnEuDy0uUMaxmtf6 by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T23:19:36.911159Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo liberty is personal freedom but some people care about institutional freedom, and being forced to contribute back your code maximizes freedom. license incompatibilities are just a thing that exists in the fallen world where you have standards of behavior but have to make concrete decisions about implementation that will never be good enough for all situations.
(DIR) Post #AvGnyXGbhWXiiNmS2a by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:26:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo GPL does not force contributing anything back. It is not the intended / stated purpose. It forces giving the code to the users it's distributed to, not the upstream project. The upstream project can potentially get the code if they can become users of it or if compliance is done by just publishing it publicly but that's not mandatory. The code doesn't have to meet the upstream standards and be at all close to something which could be used.
(DIR) Post #AvGnyYI3tbIhtBT7wm by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T23:27:52.798017Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo I know but in practice it works unless someone deliberately subverts it
(DIR) Post #AvGoJTnRna3q2780R6 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:29:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo The reason most developers chose to use GPL licensing is because they thought it would result in getting contributions back and not having themselves get taken advantage of. It does not actually do that.Some projects have been moving to non-commercial usage licenses from GPL because they're upset big companies are using their code without giving anything back.Code also often isn't distributed outside of a company.
(DIR) Post #AvGoJUm4ACYB47UPvE by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T23:31:39.491545Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo it sounds like you're saying it doesn't work at all because it's still exploitable/ignorable by a billion dollar company
(DIR) Post #AvGoPS0hLwVYEMAoSW by feld@friedcheese.us
2025-06-18T23:31:47.498177Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo my favorite feature of the GPL is that I can start a factory and use GPL code that I've modified to run my robots and become super successful building and selling my widgets and never give a single line of code to anyone because the only user of the code is *me*
(DIR) Post #AvGoPSnGRNM8eytb9s by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T23:32:44.855951Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@feld @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo BSD license users begone
(DIR) Post #AvGoe4T3ANW3YePFR2 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:34:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @feld @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo They're describing what most companies do with GPL code: they use it internally. It's the large companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. where they have a ton of things like Linux kernel performance improvements they use internally and have no requirement to publish. Google tends to eventually try to upstream stuff but most companies don't. It also takes a very active effort to get it upstream. It's typically very hard to do.
(DIR) Post #AvGoe5j2UPtrSWtWzo by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T23:35:21.457664Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @feld @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo I don't mind that I mind if you use the software you get the ability to modify it.
(DIR) Post #AvGoly4WpR3C2UhaF6 by feld@friedcheese.us
2025-06-18T23:36:03.798676Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo I know for a fact that one of the big video streaming operations run by my employer has custom Linux kernel modifications that will never be shared with anyone, ever. 😇
(DIR) Post #AvGolzGcNyJbkHMkj2 by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T23:36:49.013059Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@feld @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo every company I have ever worked for used GPL software behind the scenes and didn't have to distribute it because the product wasnt the software, this is old news
(DIR) Post #AvGovqPcA9YbB7H44m by feld@friedcheese.us
2025-06-18T23:37:19.671118Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo GPL maximalists pretend this isn't happening everywhere all the time tho which is super funny
(DIR) Post #AvGovrNsY5lMC1TC0e by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T23:38:36.143738Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@feld @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo the problem is the billion/trillion dollar companies (like broadcom) that use GPL code in their end user products and are too big to be sued. Well, this is a problem with the existence of trillion dollar companies, no license is going to save you
(DIR) Post #AvGpWZ2di18I1F2MtM by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:40:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @feld @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo It does very little to get contributions back to the upstream project and ecosystem. That's often true when distributing code to users too. Being forced to give the users the code doesn't mean it's going to get to the upstream project and doesn't mean the code is useful to them.The main reason developers choose GPL is trying not to get taken advantage of, not the actual spirit / purpose of GPL, and then they often get very disappointed.
(DIR) Post #AvGpWadXmIFMxzJM3M by feld@friedcheese.us
2025-06-18T23:43:47.071995Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo people also forget that hardware development is just as vital to our progress as software development and as I posted about before, David Chisnall shared an experience where they needed to get new ARM cpu designs into the hands of testers but they had an NDA and couldn't publish the designs and QEMU being GPL meant they couldn't share a modified version of QEMU that conformed to the new CPU design... GPL feels like it's trapped in the 80s/90s mindset of computer culture
(DIR) Post #AvGpWfEufIW1F2pFr6 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T23:43:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @feld @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo The forcing contributions back concept is the Linux kernel interpretation of GPLv2. It's part of why they stuck with GPLv2-only. They don't believe in the same things and the same goes for the vast majority of projects licensed as GPL. They want what the Linux kernel tries to get from it. That hasn't worked out so well with most drivers being out-of-tree and in-tree ones often being super incomplete, unstable and hardly tested at all.
(DIR) Post #AvGwsPnHTJE9O6DgLA by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T01:07:37.410633Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika >You want people to trust software on faith alone based on licensingFuck no. I want people to not trust any software they haven't personally understood or have any good reason for trusting. I don't even think people should trust debian stable. I'm saying they *shouldn't* trust any proprietary firmware further than they understand it.> You also expect them to trust the hardware and firmware on faith aloneNo. I'm saying that the hardware is a 'given' -- the question of 'what can this hardware be made to do with software' assumes hardware to start with. Existing hardware comes with existing limitations and complexity. Commissioning of new hardware to be manufactured has , as @lxo would put it, additional ethical considerations when considering the lifetime of the device but see more below> as long as it doesn't allow updating the firmware.As I've pointed out - I'm more neutral on that> You folks simultaneously promote proprietary hardware/firmware while telling people they can't trust proprietary software.If you're aware of hardware that is less proprietary than anything I use or recommend, or that is in use or recommended by those in this thread or generally -- I'm interested in hearing about it. I'm well aware that there's been proprietary blobs shoehorned into things like hard drives (!) and intel cpus (!!) - that is a social problem and I'm interested in solving it, and even have some $ and free time to try to help with it. I have and am willing to take more steps to replace that hardware with this kind of flaw with time with hardware that does not have that kind of flaw, both for my own use and by institutions and others around me.> There's no consistency or logic to it. I personally don't see the inconsistency - although your insistence of being *allowed* to update firmware seems to be somewhere where we're talking past eachother which suggests that it's the source of such apparent inconsistency. The 'inconsistency' you seem to be seeing from my vantage point is demanding the some kind of personal blessing to use proprietary software/firmware, and I'm not going to give it to you. I can't keep you from doing it. I can remove any device with that software from any room I'm in but lately that's not much of an issue.> You pretend to care about things you clearly don't, it's just false marketing.Now that's just insulting. If I didn't care about this stuff I would have long since muted you, which is still tempting, since last time I checked you use github for your software making all of your code not open source and de facto microsoft code to me.But what's really troubling is how much time this thread has wasted both of our time. Both of us could actually be fixing the bugs in our respective platforms, but we're spending it in the heat and friction of accusing eachother of being insufficiently free.
(DIR) Post #AvH085hGGA4PYNZQwq by hakui@tuusin.misono-ya.info
2025-06-19T01:44:01.972468Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo nibba why do you have to make so many replies just to one single reply, are you that triggered lol>mastodonoh okay carry on (1/432
(DIR) Post #AvH1CDH87nJeAcsSRM by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T01:54:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hakui @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo Mastodon is opinionated about it and we don't care enough to maintain a patch.
(DIR) Post #AvH1CES9kHjJp72mGW by hakui@tuusin.misono-ya.info
2025-06-19T01:55:56.327393Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo i know, i'm just here to laugh at mastodon users having to split their reply over several hundred posts
(DIR) Post #Awi0pHfVVe05HLsmIa by khleedril@cyberplace.social
2025-06-18T11:41:41Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Starkimarm This isn't really mansplaining so much as somebody offering an opinion when they don't know who they're talking to.
(DIR) Post #Awi17iiXgGZwNl5qDY by mrsaturday@shitposter.world
2025-08-01T00:24:31.302715Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo I don't know who it is that's behind this account but it seems like I see you crashing out more than posting anything about the project itself
(DIR) Post #Awi2gNWMa2lwjSUEls by Ree@shitposter.world
2025-08-01T00:42:00.203589Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@mrsaturday @GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @SuperDicq @lxo @sun @toatrika @tris yeah and whining about harassment and wasting people's time. If I was a graphene os user I'd switch roms clearly not professional. I don't see let's say other teams freaking out
(DIR) Post #AwjGzDbbGNopzwm2qW by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T14:56:55.465176Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo There is no "GPL" - although that is true of the GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2, LGPLv2.1, LGPLv3, AGPLv1 & AGPLv3.Yes, that's called freedom.Being forced to publish your private modifications would make a license proprietary.
(DIR) Post #AwjHJ6q6852iny2X7w by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:00:30.372437Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @feld @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Broadcom is not too big to be sued - even if a company is massive, if you are the copyright holder and have hard evidence that they're intentionally infringing your copyright and have terminated their license and they continue to distribute, they will lose the case every time.Broadcom does not infringe the copyright of GNU software, as they know the FSF would sue them and win.The issue is that Linux's license is usually not enforced by its copyright holders, which means Broadcom gets away with infringing Linux's copyright.