757
Linux not in meme
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
757 points (95.1% liked)
linuxmemes
21281 readers
227 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think people here are misunderstanding reality evaluation with judgement of value.
Every time you sign up for something without understanding what it is exactly, they are setting themselves up for failure. This doesn't mean that the company is right, or what they are doing is fair and just. Microsoft is clearly morally dubious, but they did technically get you agreement with it. The one who signed up is wrong, not in valuing privacy, but in expecting, even for a single moment, that a corporation would have their best interest in mind. They only have revenue growth in mind, and that's bu the very nature of how their business is organized.
That's why zero trust systems are important, and FOSS is a way of getting it. Being open source allows for anyone with enough technical knowledge to audit every part of the system, so you don't need to trust a businessman
So what you're hand waving away here is legalese and how no one can understand much of it even if they did read it. Absolutely no one reads every page of the 50 you're required to sign when buying a house, for example.
But we have trust that society wouldn't allow us to buy a house if people are hiding sneaky shit in the contractual language. Yes we have a few things like variable interest rates but no one is signing away their privacy rights in perpetuity in exchange for the chance to buy a home. We have a society that gives us certain expectations, and quite often those are met.
No, to use a computer we should not have to read 100 pages of documents and understand all of them. It's impractical and that's illustrated by the fact that billions of people so far haven't read any of that shit.
You are right that we ought to be more careful signing stuff, but that's a separate discussion imo. We shouldn't even have the option legally of accidentally agreeing to such self sabotage