Maybe others really believe it’s not “nothing” 😒

If votes determine if a post is constructive, and bots are the majority… 😬

Poisoning the well.

Companies make money using open source code and ignore the licenses which compel them to release their source code (due to ignorance, laziness or selfish gains). While AI generated code cannot be copyrighted then you cannot apply copyleft licenses to that code. Telling human-authored code from AI slop may be difficult or impossible - that could make it more difficult to enforce copyleft compliance in a lawsuit.

Do not accept the premise of assholes.

(3rd option: don’t accept the premise)

Perhaps we could update our software licenses to include “no implied babysitting”.

Not quite miss, but my fingers still type for the wrong programs in the start menu: task manager, notepad, etc.

Are they lying about secure boot being a reason or can I go back to thinking SB is part of Microsoft’s EEE attack on software freedom?

for the average joe using the terminal is too hard

The average Joe can certainly find it difficult to justify spending the time learning the terminal… but actually learning how to use the terminal is easy (and I’m tired of everyone pretending it’s not). If we tech literate people can put aside our low expectations then maybe we’ll find it’s easier to teach that expected.

Then we can consider something like downloading apps by visiting websites (perhaps after dodging malware links from adverts in modern search engines) a solved problem: don’t do that.

This is something which ought to be taught in school as part of using a computer but users being tech literate probably goes against tech corporates that have their claws in education.

Maybe modern search engines are part of the problem here. A local computer geek can probably offer better advice (better “tech tips” if you will).

Mint is the most similar environment for Windows to more easily transfer over and get used to?

Mint kernel version appears rather old - does it support the latest AMD GPUs out of the box?

Pretending to be the average Joe to see what issues may occur certainly has it’s place - before an expert informs them of what they ought to do. That’s not to say people creating software cannot do better to appeal to the average user’s needs but it’s falls on experts to teach them to do tech right.

The freedom to deny others the same freedom?

If it’s all your own work then a license is purely for others to follow. MIT and GPL license can be just as simple as including a textfile of that license in the project.

Ideally one includes a header in each code file to ensure people just looking at that file (without project context) know the license.

Cancer is a bad analogy. It’s more like antibodies against non-free bactetia :)

The zed-industries Github repository lists Zed licenses as AGPL, Apache and GPLv3.

The AGPL refers to the GNU Affero General Public license, which does not limit others from competing. Unless you mean the fact that forks must share source code when accessed over a network?

Never understood a terms of service existing if the project code license is GPL or such. Can’t this just be forked and cured of anti features, if people value it enough to do so?

Binding arbitration (aka, if we break the law you can’t sue us) ought to be illegal in every country.

Seperating the modern web browser into discrete parts and each doing them well seems to be the only logically answer to me. (If ignoring the task of convincing the general public to do anything in their best interests). We already have dedicated video/music player software on our OSs.

can work on any web browser

Gemini can have competition of browsers: it’s feasible for one person to create a Gemini client completely, correctly and securely.

There are only ~2 web browsers left and making a new one at all is near impossible (forks with minor size changes are great n’ all but not meaningful enough to stop Google basically being in control).

Usually they only comply by suing them, after nagging them for years…